alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021297EN.01001701.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/17

---

Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-259/20, Ryanair v Commission

(Case C-210/21 P)

(2021/C 297/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F. C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2097 final of 31 March 2020 on State Aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France — Covid-19 — Deferral of the payment of airline taxes in favour of public air transport undertakings is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2097 final of 31 March 2020 on State Aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France — Covid-19 — Deferral of the payment of airline taxes in favour of public air transport undertakings is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;

alternatively:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.

Third, the General Court erred in law in its determination of the proportionality of the aid to the quantum of the damage under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS AUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
 DECEMBER 31, 1996 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                         723,569
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  238,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    72,978
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             1,503,213
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               1,550,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        2,022,392
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     211,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 1,550,192
<SALES>                                                      3,358,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             3,384,820
<CGS>                                                        2,859,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                3,615,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (231,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 (231,060)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (231,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (231,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  (8.440)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (8.440)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 11


                      THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER UNIT
                        (in thousands, execpt per unit)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Years Ended December 31,
                                                                  --------------------------------------
 Partnership Units                                                  1995           1994           1993  
                                                                  --------       --------       --------
 <S>                                                               <C>            <C>            <C>    
   Average number of units  outstanding during the period           36,241         36,757         36,757
   Net units issuable in connection with dilutive options based                                         
   upon use of the treasury stock method                                31             32             33
                                                                  --------       --------       --------
   Average number of primary units                                  36,272         36,789         36,790
                                                                  ========       ========       ========
 Net income                                                        $27,317        $15,574        $12,797
                                                                  ========       ========       ========
 Net income per unit                                               $   .75        $   .42        $   .35
                                                                  ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>
THEODORE MOSS III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2637

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

Theodore Moss III, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
260 La. 690

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Abraham FRANCIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52127.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: Abraham Francis applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made reveals that applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.
Solar Turbines Incorporated

9330 Sky Park Court

San Diego, CA 92123

Tel: (858) 694-1616

Submitted Electronically

October 10, 2014

Frank DeMaris

Yolo-Solano AQMD

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis, CA 95618

fdemaris@ysaqmd.org

RE: Comments to the Proposed Revisions to Rule 2.34: Stationary Gas Turbines

Dear Mr. DeMaris: 

Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 

proposed revisions to Rule 2.34. 

Solar is a manufacturer of industrial combustion turbines (1-22 MW). Solar’s fleet includes more 

than 14,000 combustion turbines in 98 countries. 

This letter addresses Solar’s concerns with the proposed revisions to Rule 2.43.

301 EMISSIONS LIMITS

According to Footnote A in the table of compliance limits, ‘gas’ fuel includes natural, digester, and 

landfill gases. While it is true that each is a gas, ‘alternative fuels’ like landfill gas, digester 

gas, and refinery gas range in composition, heating values, and combustion properties that 

cannot easily be quantified. The variability in alternative fuel composition results in a 

wide-ranging emissions profile.

For example, the current California BACT (federal LAER) for NOx from landfill gas fired turbines 

is 25 ppm. The current federal BACT level is usually around 42 ppm NOx. In effect, the proposed 

Rule 2.43 would require emissions levels far below current LAER and what has been demonstrated 

for alternative gaseous fuel applications.

Solar recommends the term ‘gas’ in the table be changed to Natural Gas. Alternative gaseous fuels 

should have separate, higher limits, or be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

302 START-UP/SHUT-DOWN

43 ppm NOx (15% O2) is not achievable during start-up on industrial size gas turbines for natural 

gas fuel. Solar estimates a range of 50-70 ppm NOx (15% O2) during start-up for industrial natural 
gas fired turbines equipped with Dry-Low NOx (DLN) burners. A value of 70 ppm NOx is 

therefore recommended instead of 43 ppm. 

303.3 CONTINUOUS MONITORING

ISO correction for gas turbines equipped with DLN systems is unnecessary. ISO correction is also 

cited in section 501.3.

Please feel free to contact me at 858.505.8554 if you have any questions or need any additional 

information. 

Sincerely,

Solar Turbines Incorporated

Anthony Pocengal

Principal Environmental Engineer
[No. 344-3.

Division Three.

January 31, 1972.]

#### Del J. Simmons, *Respondent,*v. Kenneth W. Cain *et al., Appellants.*
Calendar No. 188

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1192

[Report No. 103–131]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to report purposes. conveyed to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for air- lease restrictions on the use of certain property

AUGUST 24, 1993

Reported with an amendment
II

Calendar No. 188

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1192

[Report No. 103–131]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on the

use of certain property conveyed to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for

airport purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

AUGUST 24, 1993

Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2 (legislative

day, June 30), 1993, by Mr. HOLLINGS, with an amendment

[Omit the part struck through]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on the use of certain property conveyed to

the city of Soldotna, Alaska, for airport purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1192 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Soldotna Airport

3 Improvement Act of 1993’’.

4 SEC. 2. RELEASE.

5 Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Airport

6 Act (as in effect on December 12, 1963), the Secretary

7 of Transportation is authorized, subject to the provisions

8 of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C.

9 1622c), and the provisions of section 3 of this Act, to

10 grant releases from any of the terms, conditions, reserva11 tions, and restrictions contained in the deed of conveyance

12 dated December 12, 1963, under which the United States

13 conveyed certain property to the city of Soldotna, Alaska,

14 for airport purposes.

15 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

16 (a) Any release granted by the Secretary of Transpor17 tation under section 2 of this Act shall be subject to the

18 following conditions:

19 (1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree

20 that, in conveying any interest in the property which

21 the United States conveyed to the city by deed dated

22 December 12, 1963, the city will receive an amount

23 for such interest which is equal to the fair market

24 value (as determined pursuant to regulations issued

25 by the Secretary of Transportation).
3

S 1192 RS

1 (2) Any such amount so received by the city

2 shall be used by the city for the development, im3 provement, operation, or maintenance of a public

4 airport.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000001630-AUG-201108:44 AM
# C_2023127EN.01003401.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL)

(Case T-684/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MOSTOSTAL - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 127/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Saettel and K. Krawczyk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Polimex — Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw) (represented by: J. Kubalski, K. Szczudlik and M. Hyży, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mostostal S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mostostal S.A.;

| 3. | Orders Polimex — Mostostal S.A. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Polimex — Mostostal S.A. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G.
Merritt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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/ Mary G. Merritt
-------------------
Mary G. Merritt
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
November 14, 2005


                                       19
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1429** 

In R e: KUNTA KENTA REDD , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 7:08

- cr
- 00043

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : June 23, 2016 Decided: June 2 8 , 2016

Before MOTZ , KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kunta Kenta Redd , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Kunta Kenta Redd petitions for a wr it of mandamus, alleging
that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his

motion for reduction of sentence. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to act. We conclude that the
present record does not reveal undue delay in the district
court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid
the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Order filed March 6, 2012. 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01085-CV

____________

CLAUDE ELDRIDGE, Appellant

V.

CINTAS CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 992031

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed December 8, 2011. To date, the filing fee of 

$175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of this 

court on or before March 20, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the 

filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00036-CV

Ex parte J.J. §

§

§

§

From the 235th District Court

of Cooke County (CV16-00300)

July 12, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s 

expunction order is reversed and we render judgment denying Appellee J.J.’s 

expunction petition. It is further ordered that all documents that were turned over 

to the trial court or to J.J. by law-enforcement agencies in compliance with the 

expunction order must be returned to the submitting agencies.

It is ordered that J.J. shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let 

execution issue
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr_________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
# C_2023015EN.01003302.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-789/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
EXHIBIT NO. 15





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


            Re: Registration Statements on Form S-8,
                File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,
                No. 333-261777, and No. 333-42879

                Registration Statement on Form S-3,
                File No. 33-58670


With   respect   to  the  subject  Registration  Statements,   we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report  dated
February  17,  1999  related to our review of  interim  financial
information.

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


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        / s / KPMG LLP


                                        KPMG LLP




Hartford, Connecticut
February 17, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39,141
<SECURITIES>                                    99,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,986
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,910
<INVENTORY>                                     22,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               258,467
<PP&E>                                          30,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,932
<BONDS>                                         25,821
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                     212,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,653
<SALES>                                        214,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,438
<CGS>                                           89,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,817
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,302
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    690
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00699

- CV

ORION DRILLING COMPA NY, LLC
, Appellant

v.
TX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC
, Appellee

From the County Court, Jim Wells County, Texas Trial Court No. 19

- 07

- 59662

- CV Honorable Michael Ventura Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2019

DI SMISSED
Appellant has filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. To the extent appellant

seeks dismissal of this appeal, w e grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
42.1(a) (1) ( authorizing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal on an appellant’s motion)

. However,
appellant’s motion does not show that t he parties have reached an agreement as to c osts . Therefore,

costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See id . 42.1(d) ( stating costs must be taxed against an
appellan t absent agreement of the parties )

.
PER CURIAM