alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023261EN.01002501.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — BNP Paribas SA v TR

(Case C-567/21, (1) BNP Paribas)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 33 and 36 - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Question raised incidentally before the courts of another Member State - Effects produced by that judgment in the State of origin - Admissibility of an action brought in the Member State addressed after that judgment - National procedural rules imposing the concentration of claims in a single set of proceedings)

(2023/C 261/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 36 thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding the recognition, in the Member State addressed, of a judgment concerning an employment contract, given in the Member State of origin, from resulting in the inadmissibility of claims brought before a court of the Member State addressed on the ground that the legislation of the Member State of origin lays down a procedural rule for the centralisation of all claims relating to that employment contract, without prejudice to the procedural rules of the Member State addressed which are liable to apply once that recognition has occurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
#### Carlton Michael NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Tom Waddell, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUGENE ROLAND SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-210, CA-97-482-2) Submitted: October 27, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Eugene Roland Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-94-210; CA-97-482-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131429 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131429 

 COA: 259835 

Macomb CC: 02-002871-FC 

MIKE M. IBRAHIM,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/              **Stephen              R. Wherry**                                                                                                          |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Stephen              R. Wherry                                                                                                                                              |
|   | Senior                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer                and Assistant Secretary (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|   | November              8, 2007                                                                                                                                               |

----
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

94) IV-C-60 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:56 AM Sheet 94 of 232 
P.2 

* TQH \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

IBR* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

% P " ° ^ •"> FEB 51988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Lawton M. Chiles 

United States Senator 

Federal Building 

Lakeland, Florida 33801 

Dear Senator Chiles: 

This is in response to your January 21, 1988 

letter relaying the concerns of one of your constituents, 

Mr. Gordon P. Summers, Jr., regarding EPA's regulatory 

proposal to require onboard canisters on new vehicles to 

control refueling emissions. To assist you with your 

response, I have enclosed a copy of our proposal for your 

review. Section E (pages 31177-31182) explains EPA's overall 

rationale for proposing onboard controls. If you would like 

further details of our analysis, please contact Mr. Philip 

Carlson of the Standards Development and Support Branch of 

the Emission Control Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 

668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place the letter 

from Mr. Summers in our public docket and fully consider his 

comments in the next phase of our rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 

-_•" '•• 00 BY 

oKJNi^s) ZJ. ij.i'-'ujIH 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Prepared by: Form Letter:sal:2/3/88:AL880390 - ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI 

bcc: Region 04 

Congressional Liaison/Quinn
House Calendar No. 158

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 428

[Report No. 103–508]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2108)

fits Act.to make improvements in the Black Lung BeneMAY 17, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 158

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 428

[Report No. 103–508]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2108) to make improvements

in the Black Lung Benefits Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 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. 2108) to make

improvements in the Black Lung Benefits Act.

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. 2108) to make improvements in

6 the Black Lung Benefits Act. The first reading of the bill

7 shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consider8 ation of the bill for failure to comply with section
2

HRES 428 RH

1 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are

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

3 shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

4 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

5 Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate

6 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five7 minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours (exclud8 ing time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings inci9 dental thereto). It shall be in order to consider as an origi10 nal bill for the purpose of amendment under the five11 minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute

12 consisting of the text of H.R. 4415. The amendment in

13 the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At

14 the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

15 the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House

16 with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any

17 Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any

18 amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the

19 bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute

20 made in order as original text. The previous question shall

21 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

22 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

23 one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
#### Edward KELLY and Ann Kelly, his wife, Appellants, v. Ira A. HOTCHKISS d/b/a Paradise Villas Apartments, Appellee.

No. 69-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022119EN.01001402.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/14

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Toledo — Spain) — KQ v Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM)

(Case C-226/21) (1)

(Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Exemption from providing on-call medical services on the grounds of age granted solely to permanent workers)

(2022/C 119/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Toledo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KQ

Defendant: Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM)

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the right to an exemption from providing on-call services is granted to permanent workers but not to fixed-term workers.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 8 April 2021.

---
#### R. J. KEATON, Appellant, v. Billy CRAYTON, Appellee.

No. 67-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 19, 1968.

Alan Sundberg, of Masterson, Lloyd, Sundberg & Rogers, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

William Wood, of Ramseur, Bradham, Lyle, Skipper & Cramer, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

*16PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Williams v. Duval County Hospital Authority, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 299.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

NATALI S. RAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE 

OF RIVER RUSSELL, DECEASED AND 

JOSEPH B. RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF RIVER RUSSELL, 

DECEASED,

Petitioners

v.

PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC AND PHILLIP 

JAMES ANTOINE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 186 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 16-1377

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,

v.
MARSHALL H. DION,
Defendant, Appellant.

**ERRATA SHEET**
The opinion of this Court issued on June 8, 2017, is amended as follows:

On page 34, line 16, "See," is changed to "See,".
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ROBERT FAYANT; JULIE 

LORRAINE FAYANT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

U.S. BANK, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35097 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00139-SMJ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

William Robert Fayant and Julie Lorraine Fayant appeal from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) 

claim for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Serra 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-35097 

v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Fayants’ action as time-barred

because the Fayants did not send a notice of rescission to defendant within three 

years of consummation of the loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a right of 

rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender 

fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of 

rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years 

after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 

1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the 

courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the 

three-year limitation period.”). We reject as without merit the Fayants’ contention 

that the subject loan transaction was not consummated. 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Willie T. BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-557.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L., (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a revocation of probation, the defendant urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a statement obtained from the appellant by police officers after appellant was taken into custody where the State did not establish that such statement was made after the appellant had been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Extended argument is made on the necessity for *Miranda*warnings to a defendant charged with a violation of probation. See *State v. Heath,*343 So.2d 13 (Fla.1977).

We do not reach this point because we find in the record testimony that the *“Miranda*rights” were given to the defendant prior to his statement. At the revocation hearing, the objection of defendant was *1170only that “no proper predicate” was laid for the introduction of defendant’s statement to the officer. The objection is too general to raise the point now argued which is based upon the proposition that a general statement of the giving of *“Miranda*rights” is not sufficient to show compliance with the requirements of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

A point directed to the sufficiency of the affidavit of violation of probation is without merit. See *Simmons v. State,*287 So.2d 720 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



                                   EXHIBIT 27
                          GENRAD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                    ARTICLE 5

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 29, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 29, 1997 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>                                         DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                  1
<CASH>                                                       5,610
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               60,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   911
<INVENTORY>                                                 22,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            92,854
<PP&E>                                                      79,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                              60,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             129,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       30,788
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    26,638
<OTHER-SE>                                                  50,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               129,158
<SALES>                                                     41,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            52,500
<CGS>                                                       17,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               23,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            22,157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              7,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (4,715)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         11,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                11,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.42
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014240EN.01001102.xml

| 24.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7279 — Apollo/Endemol)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 240/03

On 10 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7279. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7279. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---