alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023015EN.01001401.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

(Case C-238/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Point 1 of Article 3 - Article 5(1) - Article 6(1) - Excavated materials - Concepts of ‘waste’ and of ‘by-product’ - Cessation of waste status)

(2023/C 15/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Porr Bau GmbH

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

must be interpreted as

precluding national legislation under which uncontaminated excavated materials, which, pursuant to national law, are in the highest quality class,

| — | must be classified as ‘waste’ where their holder neither intends nor is required to discard them and those materials meet the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive for being classified as ‘by-products’, and |
| --- | --- |

—

must be classified as ‘waste’ where their holder neither intends nor is required to discard them and those materials meet the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive for being classified as ‘by-products’, and

| — | only lose that waste status when they are used directly as a substitute and their holder has satisfied the formal criteria which are irrelevant for the purposes of environmental protection, if those criteria have the effect of undermining the attainment of the objectives of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

only lose that waste status when they are used directly as a substitute and their holder has satisfied the formal criteria which are irrelevant for the purposes of environmental protection, if those criteria have the effect of undermining the attainment of the objectives of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
SERVICE AGREEMENT


 


Date: 15th September, 2020


 


To: Global Leaders Academy Limited (called GLA hereafter)
of registered office at Room 1701-03, 17/F, The Metropolis Tower, 10 Metropolis Drive, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.


 


From: CS Global Consultancy Limited (called CSGC hereafter)
of registered office at Room 2705, 27/F, Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong.


 


 


This service agreement is made on 15th September,
2020 between “CS Global Consultancy Limited” and “Global Leaders Academy Limited”.


 


Subject :


Consultancy Services for Building “Owner’s Mindset
& High Execution Culture” Project


 


The consultancy services would include:


		·	Attend Staff Kick-off Meeting



		·	Construct Team collaboration spirit, promote Owner’s Mindset & High Execution Corporate Culture (conducted by outsourced
training institute in China)



		·	Design “Owner’s Mindset & High Execution Culture” program (half-day) and Trainer’s Guide



		·	Facilitate “ Owner’s Mindset & High Execution” Coordinators (30 persons) Program (half day)



		·	Facilitate “Owner’s Mindset & High Execution” Ambassadors & Internal Trainers (5-6 persons) Program
(1 day)



		·	Design Development Plan & Project Applications for Internal Trainers (5-6 persons)



		·	Provide online Coaching to Internal Trainers (5 to 6 persons)



		·	Conduct “Owner’s Mindset & High Execution Culture” Coordinators quarterly review meeting



		·	Conduct “Owner’s Mindset & High Execution Culture” Ambassadors & Internal Trainers quarterly review
meeting & project application meeting



 


 


PAYMENT TERMS


General payment terms as follows:


		1)	All received payment is non-refundable.



		2)	Any request outside the service scopes is subject
to additional quotation.



		3)	Payment is due at the end of the month following the
month of the invoice.



 


LEGAL ENTITY


All legal entity and regulatory review of this agreement will
be done in accordance with the governance of the laws of Hong Kong, SAR.


 


AGREEMENT SIGNED BY


This agreement is effective from date of signing
and valid until 31st December, 2024.


 


 


  


/s/ Au Sai Man (Authorized Signature and Company Chop)


Saiman Au, Operations Director


For and on behalf of CS Global Consultancy Limited


Date: 15th September, 2020


 


 


 


/s/ Cheung Yiu Chung Bruce (Authorized Signature and
Company Chop)


Bruce Cheung, Chief Business Officer


For and on behalf of Global Leaders Academy Limited


Date: 15th September, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  544,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    156,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               953,288
<PP&E>                                         756,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,960,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,167
<BONDS>                                      1,611,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,842,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,960,499
<SALES>                                        114,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               656,927
<CGS>                                           82,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  411,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,129
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10823.

#### Smith *v.*Coolidge.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. W. G. Brossman*and *Mr. G. A. Fairbanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. L. Brewer,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


Date: March 17, 2006


/s/ Henry B. Smith
-------------------------------------
Henry B. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30854

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD BOTTINI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1716)

_______________________________________________________

September 24, 1998

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Richard Bottini appeals a civil judgment assessing

statutory penalties against him under the False Claims Act, 31

U.S.C. § 3729. After reviewing the record and briefs, we are of

the opinion that the district court committed no errors of law,

and that its findings of fact as set for in its Amended Opinion

are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021182EN.01003301.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC

(Case C-106/21)

(2021/C 182/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: BC

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees which is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.

Date: November 19, 2003

                                    /s/ Kenneth White
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Kenneth White
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    and acting Chief Financial Officer



      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Whitemark Homes,
Inc. and will be retained by Whitemark Homes, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MALLYCLAD CORPORATION AND VYN-L CORPORATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001052497
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         229,615
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  358,731
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,000
<INVENTORY>                                    285,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               918,877
<PP&E>                                       2,421,415
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,304,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,069,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        88,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     695,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,069,010
<SALES>                                      1,915,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,915,620
<CGS>                                        1,596,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,596,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               349,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,671)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Larry J. TAYLOR, Respondent.

No. 42217.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 24, 1972.

Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, and Gerald L. Brown, Pensacola, for The Florida Bar.

William W. Henderson, Jr., Pensacola, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Article 11, Rule 11.08, of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., respondent has filed with this Court a petition for leave to resign from The Florida Bar for a period of not less than three years. In its response thereto, The Bar has concluded that the requested resignation will not adversely affect the purity of the courts, nor hinder the administration of justice, nor damage public confidence in the legal profession.

Wherefore, it is the judgment of the Court that respondent Larry J. Taylor, be *200permitted to resign from the practice of law and membership in The Florida Bar without leave for reinstatement for three years.

Costs of these proceedings shall be taxed against respondent.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Alex BARTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 30, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alex Barton, a/k/a Ellis, was charged in two informations filed by the county solicitor of Hillsborough County with selling cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, in violation of Section 404.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., of the Florida Drug Abuse Law.

One information, an amended direct information, charged appellant with selling marijuana to a person under 21 years on February 10, 1972. It was alleged in said information that appellant had been convicted on November 3, 1969, of the offense of possession of marijuana pursuant to Section 398.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law.

The other information, a second amended direct information, charged appellant with selling marijuana to a person under 21 years on February 26, 1972. This information alleged therein the. same prior conviction as did the first amended direct information.

Barton entered a plea of not guilty to each offense, was tried and found guilty by a jury, and sentenced as a subsequent offender for a period of 30 years on each offense, said sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant filed a motion for new trial which the trial judge denied after hearing.

Notice of Appeal was filed in this court to review the judgment and sentence. Appellant was represented very ably by an assistant public defender in the trial court. He is being represented in this court by an attorney from that office.

We specify that the grounds raised by appellant on this appeal were argued before the trial court at the hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial and were decided by the court adversely to the appel*301lant. We agree with this ruling by the learned trial judge.

We have carefully considered the grounds relied on by appellant for reversal in the light of the record and briefs, oral argument having been waived by the parties, and we find no reversible error shown. The record discloses that the case was vigorously and fairly tried and that the verdicts are amply supported by the evidence. The rulings of the trial court challenged by the appellant did not on the record and under the law as we comprehend it constitute reversible error.

The judgment and sentence appealed is therefore,

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### Beryl DRUMMOND and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Carl GERWE, Appellee.

No. 72-438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022073EN.01001002.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL

(Case C-680/21)

(2022/C 73/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club

Defendant: Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the plan relating to ‘HGPs’ adopted on 2 February 2005 by UEFA’s Executive Committee, approved by UEFA’s 52 member associations at the Tallinn Congress on 21 April 2005 and implemented by means of regulations adopted both by UEFA and by its member federations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the plan relating to ‘HGPs’ adopted on 2 February 2005 by UEFA’s Executive Committee, approved by UEFA’s 52 member associations at the Tallinn Congress on 21 April 2005 and implemented by means of regulations adopted both by UEFA and by its member federations?

| 2. | Are Articles 45 and 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the application of the rules on the inclusion on the match sheet and the fielding of locally trained players, as formalised by Articles P335.11 and P.1422 of the URBSFA’s federal regulation and reproduced in Articles B4.1[12] of Title 4 and B6.109 of Title 6 of the new URBSFA regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 45 and 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the application of the rules on the inclusion on the match sheet and the fielding of locally trained players, as formalised by Articles P335.11 and P.1422 of the URBSFA’s federal regulation and reproduced in Articles B4.1[12] of Title 4 and B6.109 of Title 6 of the new URBSFA regulation?

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7221

NORMAN LEE, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JENNIFER SAAD, Warden, FCI Gilmer , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. Frederick P. Stamp , Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:18

- cv
- 00181

- FPS )

Submitted : January 29, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before KING, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Norman Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Norman Lee, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Lee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e) , a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the l egality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this c ircuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substan tive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents a n error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect. United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Lee has not met the Wheeler test, thus, there is no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Lee’s motion for summary judgment and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. Saad , No. 5:18

- cv
- 00181

- FPS (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 2, 2019).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED