alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022119EN.01001901.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2021 — GP v juris GmbH

(Case C-741/21)

(2022/C 119/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GP

Defendant: juris GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of recital 85 and the third sentence of recital 146 of the GDPR, (1) is the concept of ‘non-material damage’ in Article 82(1) of the GDPR to be understood as covering any impairment of the protected legal position, irrespective of the other effects and materiality of that impairment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of recital 85 and the third sentence of recital 146 of the GDPR, (1) is the concept of ‘non-material damage’ in Article 82(1) of the GDPR to be understood as covering any impairment of the protected legal position, irrespective of the other effects and materiality of that impairment?

| 2. | Is liability for compensation under Article 82(3) of the GDPR excluded by the fact that the infringement is attributed to human error in the individual case on the part of a person acting under the authority of the processor or controller within the meaning of Article 29 of the GDPR? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is liability for compensation under Article 82(3) of the GDPR excluded by the fact that the infringement is attributed to human error in the individual case on the part of a person acting under the authority of the processor or controller within the meaning of Article 29 of the GDPR?

| 3. | Is it permissible or necessary to base the assessment of compensation for non-material damage on the criteria for determining fines set out in Article 83 of the GDPR, in particular in Article 83(2) and 83(5) of the GDPR? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it permissible or necessary to base the assessment of compensation for non-material damage on the criteria for determining fines set out in Article 83 of the GDPR, in particular in Article 83(2) and 83(5) of the GDPR?

| 4. | Must the compensation be determined for each individual infringement, or are several infringements — or at least several infringements of the same nature — penalised by means of an overall amount of compensation, which is not determined by adding up individual amounts but is based on an evaluative overall assessment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the compensation be determined for each individual infringement, or are several infringements — or at least several infringements of the same nature — penalised by means of an overall amount of compensation, which is not determined by adding up individual amounts but is based on an evaluative overall assessment?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
#### Roger CLEMONS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50320.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1978.

Boudie A. Jaggers, Pontotoc, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

EN BANC.

SUGG, Justice, for the Court.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KONG PRAK, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-71176 Agency No. A095-442-763
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 5, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge. *** 

# FILED
MAR 10 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.Kong Prak, a native and citizen of Cambodi a, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the provisi ons of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction ge nerally under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we have jurisdiction to review the denial of asyl um as the appeal presents mixed questions of fact and law. Khan v. Holder , 584 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The IJ determined that Prak should have known that the Cambodia Freedom Fighters (“CFF”) was a terrorist orga nization, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi), during the time that he was a member and solicited others for membership, and therefore was ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(V). The IJ was not obligated to consider the factors set forth in the Fo reign Affairs Manual (“ FAM”), which refers only to factors that must be considered in evaluating a visa application. 9 FAM 40.32 n2.1. Furthermore, the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence as Prak admitted in his asylum application that he was an active member of the CFF at the time the CFF engaged in terrorist activity, as defined in § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii), by attempting a violent coup of the Cambodian government. Because Prak failed

2to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he should not reasonably have known that the CFF was a terrorist organi zation when he solicited individuals for membership, Prak was ineligible for asylum. See § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(V)(cc). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       6,969,633
<SECURITIES>                                12,164,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,345,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                   148,334
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,764,430
<PP&E>                                       1,583,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,523,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,641,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,194
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,787,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,523,539
<SALES>                                      4,202,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,202,378
<CGS>                                        2,733,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,337,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (896,336)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (896,336)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (10,055,639)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,951,975)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Nora C. HAYWARD v. T. C. CLARK et al.

No. 44772.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 4, 1968.

Jay Gore, Jr., Grenada, for appellant.

Leon E. Provine, Grenada, Jesse L. Yan-cy, Jr., Bruce, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 24, 2014

p0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148313

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148313

COA: 315587

Clinton CC: 11-008760-FH

GREGGORY LEE HENDY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, it appearing that the defendant’s former appellate counsel is 

unavailable to explain the reason for his failure to file on the defendant’s behalf in the 

trial court a timely post-judgment motion or to file a timely direct appeal in the Court of 

Appeals, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2013 order of the Court of 

Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the 

defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal under the standard for direct appeals.
Exhibit 23.2Consent of Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.     As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 33-57348, No. 333-34617, No. 333-66938 and No. 333-117533) on FormsS-8 of Parallel Petroleum Corporation of information from ourreserves report dated January 29,2007 and all references to our firm included in or made a part of the annual report on Form 10-K ofParallel Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.Ft. Worth, Texas
# C_2021110EN.01002401.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/24 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2021 — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC (Case C-33/21) (2021/C 110/26) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Corte suprema di cassazione Parties to the main proceedings Appellants: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Respondent: Ryanair DAC Question referred Can the concept of a person ‘employed principally in the territory of the Member State in which he resides’ contained in Article 14(2)(a)(ii) [of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, ( 1 ) as amended] be interpreted in the same way as that which (concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters, jurisdiction and individual contracts of employment (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) ( 2 )) Article 19(2)(a) [of the latter Regulation] defines as the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, including in the aviation and airline crew sector (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91), ( 3 ) as expressed in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to in the grounds? ( 1 )  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2). ( 2 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1). ( 3 )  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (OJ 1991 L 373, p. 4).

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: W.M. Roberson v. Anthony Saint Val

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 1001

- CV

Trial court case number: 1085226

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

On December 20, 2016, a ppellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court from the final judgment, signed on December 5, 2016. On December 16, 2016, appellant filed in this Court an emergency motion to stay execution of the writ of posses sion. By order dated December 29, 2016, we stayed execution of the writ of possession.

Upon further review, we note that we may not stay the judgment of a county court in an eviction suit pending appeal unless, within ten days of the signing of the judg ment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. See T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE A NN . § 24.007(a) (West Supp. 2016 ); Phillips v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. , No.

03

– 11

– 00461

– CV, 2012 WL 424875, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin, Feb. 1, 2012, o rder). Based only on the documents filed in this Court, there is no indication what the supersedeas bond amount was as set by the trial court or that appellant posted that bond amount within ten days of the signing of the December 5 , 201 6 final judgment.

Accordingly, we withdraw our stay order that issued December 29, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 27, 2017
EXHIBIT 16.1
                                                                    ------------

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form No. S-1 (No. 333-66100) of Earth Search Sciences, Inc. of our
report dated June 9, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Portland, Oregon
July 6, 2002
















<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2002, of our report dated June 5, 2002, appearing
in the Registration Statement on Form No. S-1 (No. 333-66100) of Earth Search
Sciences, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 which became effective September 14, 2001.


GRANT THORNTON LLP
Seattle, Washington
August 9, 2002
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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

I, Zainab Ahmed Schwartz, acting as Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby
certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended 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: December 4, 2009

| | By: | (s)
      Zainab Ahmed Schwartz               
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------
| |     | Zainab Ahmed Schwartz                         
| |     | Vice-President, Finance and Administration and
| |     | Chief Financial 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.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                           BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.

<TABLE>
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                      (In Thousands, Except per Share Data)


<CAPTION>
                                                                         DECEMBER 31,
                                                              1996          1995           1994
                                                          --------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>           <C>           <C>  
Primary Income Per Share:
  Weighted Average Number of Common and
  Common Equivalent Shares Outstanding:

    Common Stock........................................      9,947         9,661         9,570
    Common equivalent shares resulting from options             954           416           273
                                                            -------       -------        ------- 
     Total..............................................     10,901        10,077         9,843
                                                            =======       =======        ======
Net income..............................................    $ 6,865       $ 5,203        $2,629
                                                            =======       =======        ======
Net income per Common Share.............................    $  0.63       $  0.52        $ 0.27
                                                            =======       =======        ======

Fully Diluted Income Per Share:
  Weighted Average Number of Common and
    Common Equivalent Shares Outstanding:
    Common Stock........................................      9,947         9,661         9,574
    Common equivalent shares resulting from options           1,019           492           267
                                                            -------       -------        ------
     Total..............................................     10,966        10,153         9,841
                                                            =======       =======        ======
Net income..............................................    $ 6,865       $ 5,203        $2,629
                                                            =======       =======        ======
Net income per Common Share.............................    $  0.63       $  0.51        $0.27
                                                            =======       =======        ======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****Certifications**I, Thomas J. Koenig, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 19, 2005 By:  /s/ Thomas J. Koenig   Thomas J. Koenig   Vice President and Chief Financial
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00016

- CR

CHLOE THOMAS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 47770

- A

Before Morr iss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Chloe Thomas has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. As authorized by

Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the motion

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.2(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Sub mitted: April 27 , 2021

Date Decided: April 28 , 2021

Do Not Publish
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1244

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 3,4-diaminophenetole

dihydrogen sulfate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on 3,4-

diaminophenetole dihydrogen sulfate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. 3,4-DIAMINOPHENETOLE DIHYDROGEN SUL4 FATE.

5 Heading 9902.29.45 of subchapter II of chapter 99

6 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

7 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/

8 94’’.
2

•S 1244 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

3 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from

4 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

7 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

8 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of9 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact10 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub11 heading 9902.29.45 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

12 the United States that was made—

13 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

14 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act,

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

17 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

18 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ