alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020287EN.01004101.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/41

---

Action brought on 14 July 2020 — KZ v Commission

(Case T-453/20)

(2020/C 287/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KZ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the list of promoted officials adopted by Administrative Notice No 32-2019/14.11.2019 of 14 November 2019 inasmuch as it does not include the name of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the list of promoted officials adopted by Administrative Notice No 32-2019/14.11.2019 of 14 November 2019 inasmuch as it does not include the name of the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIPs’) for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant contests the interpretation given by the Commission, which considers that Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations means that an official who is on leave on personal grounds on the date when the promotion decision is adopted by the appointing authority is not eligible for the promotion exercise concluded thereby. On the contrary, the applicant puts forward a teleological and systematic interpretation of Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations and submits that the Commission, by its interpretation, infringes the right to promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. In his view, the Commission also infringes the principle of legal certainty, the principle that the statutory provisions of which those GIPs form part should be consistent, and the principle of equal treatment in terms of career development under Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, he complains that the consequences of implementing the GIPs are illogical and disproportionate.

---
#### JOHN RICE *vs.*GEORGE W. MOORE.

A writes to a justice that lie is willing to enter security for a judgment recovered before him against B—no action can be founded on such a premise before a justice. Every suretyship must be *signed.*

Certiorari to *Justice McCaulley.*

Record. “Action on assumpsit—demand, $22 45, to wit: ‘Sep-

tember 22, 1832. William McCaulley, Esq. Sir: I have no objections to enter as security for Luke Spenser to the amount of twenty dollars, as I understand you have a judgment against him to that amount. Your obedient servant,

(Signed) George W. Moore.’ ”

The action was upon the above assumption; the summons was regularly served and returned; and after verifying the service by the oath of the constable, the justice proceeded to hear the cause in the absence of the deft, and gave judgment against him by default.

The exceptions were—First. That the record showed no cause of action. Second. That the justice had not jurisdiction of the case.

*Wales,*for defendant.

*By the Court.*

The letter of Moore, which is set forth as the cause of action, is not an assumption, but a promise to become surety that the judgment against Spenser should be paid. He is not liable upon it as an actual entry of security; for such entry must be on the justice’s docket and *signed by the surety. Dig.*338, 5, 13. The deft, is liable on this letter for a failure to become bound as surety; but such an action is not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

Judgment reversed.
#### Bruce LOMBARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1003.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry J. Clyman, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873; Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 414.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1203

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

AN ACT

To establish a Center for Rare Disease Research in the

National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Office for Rare Disease

5 Research Act of 1994’’.
2

S 1203 RFH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE FOR RARE DISEASE

2 RESEARCH.

3 Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act

4 (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

5 thereof the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 404F. OFFICE FOR RARE DISEASE RESEARCH.

7 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within

8 the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of

9 Health an office to be known as the Office for Rare Dis10 ease Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Office’).

11 The Office shall be headed by a director, who shall be ap12 pointed by the Director of the National Institutes of

13 Health.

14 ‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Office is to pro15 mote and coordinate the conduct of research on rare dis16 eases through a strategic research plan and to establish

17 and manage a rare disease research clinical database.

18 ‘‘(c) ADVISORY COUNCIL.—The Secretary shall es19 tablish an advisory council for the purpose of providing

20 advice to the director of the Office concerning carrying

21 out the strategic research plan and other duties under this

22 section. Section 222 shall apply to such council to the

23 same extent and in the same manner as such section ap24 plies to committees or councils established under such sec25 tion.
3

S 1203 RFH

1 ‘‘(d) DUTIES.—In carrying out subsection (b), the di2 rector of the Office shall—

3 ‘‘(1) develop a comprehensive plan for the con4 duct and support of research on rare diseases;

5 ‘‘(2) coordinate and disseminate information

6 among the institutes and the public on rare diseases;

7 ‘‘(3) support research training and encourage

8 the participation of a diversity of individuals in the

9 conduct of rare disease research;

10 ‘‘(4) identify projects or research on rare dis11 eases that should be conducted or supported by the

12 National Institutes of Health;

13 ‘‘(5) develop and maintain a central database

14 on current government sponsored clinical research

15 projects for rare diseases;

16 ‘‘(6) determine the need for registries of re17 search subjects and epidemiological studies of rare

18 disease populations; and

19 ‘‘(7) prepare biennial reports on the activities

20 carried out or to be carried out by the Office and

21 submit such reports to the Secretary and the Con22 gress.’’.

Passed the Senate October 8 (legislative day, September 12), 1994.

Attest: MARTHA S. POPE,

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14566]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2684-010]


Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Arpin Dam 
Project, located on the Chippewa River in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, and 
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with 
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a 
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the 
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at 
http://www.ferc.gov/ using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number 
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b4b7a0b1bd9c9e9b9c97a18782829d8086b294978091dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aaeceff8e9e5c4c6c3c4cff9dfdadac5d8deeacccfd8c984cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file 
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system 
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your 
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For 
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic 
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The 
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2684-010.
    For further information, contact Amy Chang at (202) 502-8250.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14566 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2023035EN.01005301.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Accessory for wireless remote control)

(Case T-612/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control - Ground for invalidity - Features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Facts or evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2023/C 35/62)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Chylińska and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2021 (Case R 1072/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2022 (Case R 1072/2020-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2022 (Case R 1072/2020-3);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, the undersigned, Charles W. Cramb, Chief Financial Officer
of The Gillette Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: August 2, 2005

                                                     /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Charles W. Cramb
                                                     Senior Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company (the "Company") and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFIK MNATSAKANYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72173

Agency No. A071-117-549

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

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

Rafik Mnatsakanyan, a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

 

* 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

JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-72173 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Silaya v. Mukasey, 

524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mnatsakanyan 

failed to establish his and his brother’s Iranian birth was one central reason for any 

past mistreatment he suffered in Armenia or for his brother’s death. See 

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act 

“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum 

applicant’s persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s 

determination that Mnatsakanyan failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear 

of future persecution on account of his Iranian birth or his ties to the United States. 

See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future 

persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to 

Mnatsakanyan’s claim for asylum. 

Because Mnatsakanyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he 

necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 

because Mnatsakanyan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be 
 3 14-72173 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government if 

returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**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(Principal                            Financial and Accounting Officer), Treasurer                            and Assistant Secretary May                            15, 2007 |

----
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Dennis R. Wolters, 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; andc) 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; and5. 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 the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) 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: May 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Dennis R. Wolters    Dennis R. Wolters    President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

YUSUF R. BROWN,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LANCASTER COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 177 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2021, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
H. Res. 565

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 6, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (S. 455) to amend title 31, United States Code, to

increase Federal payments to units of general local government for entitlement lands, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in

order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No

amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
2

HRES 565 EH

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order

against the amendments printed in the report are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.