alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023278EN.01001902.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Dana Astra v Council

(Case T-239/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Maintaining of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 278/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dana Astra IOOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by M. Lester, Barrister-at-Law, P. Sellar and J. Beck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by S. Van Overmeire and T. Haas, acting as Agents

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment

| — | of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 189) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 29), |
| --- | --- |

—

of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 189) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 29),

| — | of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3),
  in so far as those acts concern the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3),

in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dana Astra IOOO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dana Astra IOOO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
#### FORTUNATO *v.*DI FLIPPO.

Judgment — Consent Decree — Accounting.

Where, in suit for accounting between partners, decree was entered by consent of counsel and parties in open court, it is immaterial that it may not have had full evidentiary support, and therefore bill to set it aside was properly dismissed.

Appeal from *Wayne;*Hunt (Ormond F.), J.

Submitted October 6, 1931.

(Docket No. 19, Calendar No. 33,985.)

Decided January 4, 1932.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.

Bill by Louis Fortunato against Dominico Di Flippo and another to set aside a consent decree in a suit to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Ira J. Pettiford,*for plaintiff.

*Anthony Maiullo,*for defendants.

Clark, C. J.

Di Flippo and Fortunato entered into a copartnership to erect buildings. Di Flippo filed bill for dissolution and accounting. There was reference to circuit court commissioner for accounting. The cause came on for hearing in the circuit court in May, 1924. Both parties were represented by counsel and were in court. In the course of the trial a consent decree was agreed upon by parties and counsel in open court by continued and open discussion. Part of the understanding was that Fortunato would take certain real estate at an agreed price of $5,500. A decree was entered on November 11, 1924. It is in substance that Fortunato was to have the real estate and pay Di Flippo $4,529.37. It *546also provides that if Fortunato shall fail to. pay and to take deed, the real estate be sold and proceeds divided between the partners in . certain named amounts.

Motion for rehearing was made later and denied. No appeal was taken. The property 'was sold by circuit court .commissioner, and, after report and confirmation, the proceeds were distributed under the decree.

Fortunato filed this bill in 1928 to set aside the decree as “not being the result of a judicial determination, ’ ’ and as being fraudulent, and to set aside sale and deed pursuant thereto and subsequent conveyances. The bill quotes at length the testimony, colloquy, or argument leading up to the consent decree.

On motion the bill was dismissed. Plaintiff has appealed.

Passing the question of laches, of former adjudication, of estoppel by acceptance of distributive share under the decree, we think the bill properly dismissed. It shows no equity on its face. Having been made by consent of counsel and parties in open court, it is immaterial that it may not have full evidentiary support.

Affirmed, with costs to appellee.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
# C_2022276EN.01001101.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/11

---

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)

(Case T-766/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 276/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sapa Building Systems SpA (Naviglio, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 (Case R 2198/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Daw and Sapa Building Systems.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14790]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, 2018.

PLACE:  Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14790 Filed 7-6-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15024]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Matters to be Considered: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *
    Contact Person for More Information: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-15024 Filed 7-10-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
# C_2021452EN.01004101.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/41

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 17 September 2021 — Firearms United Network and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/21 R)

(Application for interim relief - REACH - Amendment of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Restriction on lead and lead compounds - Use of lead shot - Protection of wetlands - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 452/51)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Firearms United Network (Warsaw, Poland), Tomasz Walter Stępień (Żelechów, Poland), Michał Budzyński (Cegłów, Poland), Andrzej Marcjanik (Złotokłos, Poland) (represented by: E. Woźniak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands (OJ 2021 L 24, p. 19).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
<Page>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1



                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       of
                            Periodic Financial Report
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350



I, Arthur G. Ritchie, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sand
Technology Inc.


Date:  January 27, 2005.



                                      /s/  Arthur G. Ritchie
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.


                                       96
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42917

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GERALD BYRON CUMMINGS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 712

Filed: November 16, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35(a) motion for correction of an illegal sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Gerald Byron Cummings, Jr. pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Cummings to a unified term of four years with one 

year determinate (2012 case), to run consecutively to Cumming’s existing sentence (2008 case). 

Nearly two years later, Cummings filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) motion for correction of an 

illegal sentence in the 2012 case, which was denied by the district court. Cummings appeals 

alleging that the sentence imposed in 2012 was illegal since at that time he was on parole for the 

2008 case, and not incarcerated, the district court did not have the authority to order the 2012 

sentence be served consecutively to the 2008 sentence.
2

Cummings contends that pursuant to I.C. § 18-308, as construed by State v. Bello, 135 

Idaho 442, 445, 19 P.3d 66, 69 (Ct. App. 2001), the 2012 sentence could not be ordered 

consecutive to the 2008 sentence. However, as Cummings acknowledges, in State v. Calley, 140 

Idaho 663, 665, 99 P.3d 616, 618 (2004) and State v. Cisneros-Gonzalez, 141 Idaho 494, 496, 

112 P.3d 782, 784 (2004), the Idaho Supreme Court abrogated Bello and held that I.C. § 18-308 

did not apply and that the district court could order the second sentence to run separately from 

the prison sentence. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Cummings’ Rule 35(a) motion 

is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SHARON HAMILTON, 

Debtor, 

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

SUZANNE CONRY, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

SHARON HAMILTON; et al., 

Appellees.

No. 20-60053 

BAP No. 20-1037 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Spraker, Taylor, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Suzanne Conry appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s 

* 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

JAN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-60053 

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motions for 

reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de 

novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied 

to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 

564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. 

The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Conry’s motions for 

reconsideration for lack of standing because Conry failed to establish that she was 

personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy court’s order granting the other creditors’ 

motion for relief from the automatic stay. See Harkey v. Grobstein (In re Point 

Ctr. Fin., Inc.), 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[O]nly a person aggrieved, 

that is, someone who is directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy 

court’s order, has standing to appeal that order.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

We do not consider the underlying bankruptcy court order granting the other 

creditors’ motion for relief from the automatic stay because the notice of appeal 

was untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1) (notice of appeal from a 

bankruptcy court order must be filed within 14 days after the filing of the order); 

Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The 

provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a 

notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the 
 3 20-60053 

bankruptcy court’s order.” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett 

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 The Gillette Company (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
M. Kilts, 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 to my 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 conditions and results of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ James M. Kilts
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          James M. Kilts
                                          Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                          Officer


Date:  November 1, 2002
#### STYLE FURNITURE, INC., Appellant, v. John A. ENNELLA and Maribel Ennella, Appellees.

Nos. 73-395, 73-951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Monroe Dixon, Miami, for appellant.

Michael Colodny, Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Orlando Realty Board Bldg. Corporation v. Hilpert, 93 Fla. 954, 113 So. 100 (1927); Kington v. Boone, 92 Fla. 560, 109 So. 580 (1926).
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I,
Patrizio Vinciarelli, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No.1, of Vicor Corporation;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 3, 2014



/s/ Patrizio VinciarelliPatrizio VinciarelliChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: March 26, 2009
    By:
    /s/ DAVID E. OLSONDavid E. OlsonChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
year ended December 31, 2002 of American Insured Mortgage Investors - Series 85,
L.P. (the "Issuer").

I,  Barry S.  Blattman,  Chairman  of the Board,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and
President, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)  the Form 10-K fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section  13(a) or
     section 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or
     78o(d)); and

(ii) the  information  contained  in the Form  10-K  fairly  represents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Issuer.


                                           AMERICAN INSURED MORTGAGE
                                           INVESTORS - SERIES 85, L.P.
                                           (Registrant)

                                           By: CRIIMI, Inc.
                                               General Partner



March 19, 2002                             /s/Barry S. Blattman
--------------                             -------------------------------------
Date                                       Barry S. Blattman
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President