alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023015EN.01003701.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — QM v Europol

(Case T-164/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Interests of the service - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

(2023/C 15/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: A. Nunzi, O. Sajin and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) of 27 May 2020 not to renew his employment contract for an indefinite period and, so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 18 December 2020 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders QM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
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, 2004 (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:   July 29, 2004                      /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.
#### Rosemary LAZAR et al., Appellants, v. John B. ORR, Jr., Appellee.

No. 67-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 13, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1968.

*24Shutts & Bowen and Thomas H. Anderson, Miami, and Phillip G. Newcomm, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action, filed originally by Lawrence Lazar, is pursued by the executors of his estate who were substituted as plaintiffs upon his death. Lazar sought an accounting from his former law partner with respect to certain services performed during their partnership on behalf of a savings and loan association.

After hearing conflicting testimony and receiving evidence, the lower court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to such an accounting and entered its order accordingly.

The findings of fact by the lower court reach us with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed upon appeal if there is sufficient competent evidence to support them. Our examination of the record discloses sufficient competent evidence to support a finding that the parties had agreed that Orr should have the exclusive rights to fees for any matter involving the savings and loan association.

This result is consistent with Frates v. Nichols, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 321, 324 where this court stated:

> “Parties to a partnership agreement may contract with regard to the distribution of the assets of a partnership upon dissolution in a manner other than that which ordinarily flows by operation of law.”

The appellant has raised a second point on appeal but an examination of the assignment of errors does not show that this point was supported by a proper assignment of error and we, therefore, do not consider this point on appeal.

Accordingly, the order appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1106

To amend certain provisions of title XVIII of the Social Security Act relating

to end stage renal disease, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 15, 1993

Mr. DURENBERGER (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend certain provisions of title XVIII of the Social

Security Act relating to end stage renal disease, 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. INCREASE IN MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER

4 COVERAGE FOR END STAGE RENAL DISEASE

5 SERVICES TO 24 MONTHS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1)(C)) is amended

8 by striking the last sentence and inserting: ‘‘Effective for

9 items and services furnished on or after January 1, 1994,

10 and on or before September 30, 1998, (with respect to
2

•S 1106 IS

1 periods beginning on or after July 1, 1992), this subpara2 graph shall be applied by substituting ‘24-month’ for ‘12-

3 month’ each place it appears.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services provided

6 on or after January 1, 1994.

7 SEC. 2. 2.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN COMPOSITE RATES FOR

8 PAYMENT FOR END STAGE RENAL DISEASE

9 SERVICES.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9335(a)(1) of the Omni11 bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, as amended by

12 section 6203(a)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

13 Act of 1989 and section 4201(a)(1) of the Omnibus Budg14 et Reconciliation Act of 1990, is amended by striking the

15 last sentence and inserting the following new sentence:

16 ‘‘Effective with respect to services furnished on or after

17 January 1, 1994, such base rate shall be equal to the re18 spective rate in effect as of September 30, 1993, increased

19 by 2.5 percent.’’.

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

21 subsection (a) shall apply to services provided on or after

22 January 1, 1994.

23 SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

24 Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Social Security Act (42

25 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by striking ‘‘title,
3

•S 1106 IS

1 within’’ and all that follows and inserting the following:

2 ‘‘title, but only in the case of drugs furnished—

3 ‘‘(i) before 1994, within 12 months after

4 the date of the transplant procedure,

5 ‘‘(ii) during 1994, within 18 months after

6 the date of the transplant procedure,

7 ‘‘(iii) during 1995, within 24 months after

8 the date of the transplant procedure,

9 ‘‘(iv) during 1996, within 30 months after

10 the date of the transplant procedure, and

11 ‘‘(v) during any year after 1996, within 36

12 months after the date of the transplant proce13 dure;’’.

Æ
Robert H. Baldwin
   President
                            BELLAGIO

July 31, 1998


Mr. Stephen A. Wynn
Chairman of the Board, President
  and Chief Executive Officer
Mirage Resorts, Incorporated
3400 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada  89109

Dear Steve:

This  confirms  the  agreement this date between Bellagio and
you with  respect to the  works of fine art entitled "Flag on
Orange  Field II" by Jasper Johns (1958, encaustic on canvas,
54 x 36-1/4  inches),  and "Untitled IX" by Willem de Kooning
(1977, oil  on canvas,  70 x  80 inches)  (collectively,  the
"Works"),  each of which  you purchased  from an  independent
party  on  June 19, 1998  at  a purchase price of $13,000,000
and $1,650,000, respectively.

     1.   The  January 14, 1998  agreement  between  Bellagio
and you, as subsequently  amended (the "Original Agreement"),
is hereby amended to  provide that,  effective June 19, 1998,
the Exhibit`B' Art  referenced  therein which you are renting
to Bellagio shall include the Works.

     2.   The terms of the  rental of the Works  shall be the
same  as those  set forth  in  the  Original  Agreement  with
respect to the Exhibit `B' Art, except that the annual rental
for the Works,  payable  in  equal  monthly  installments  in
advance,  shall  be $156,000 and $19,800, respectively.  Rent
for the Works payable for the period prior to the date hereof
shall be included in the August 1998 rent payment.

     3.   The Works shall be maintained on public display and
shall be available for  educational purposes  in  any  hotel-
casino  operated  by any  wholly owned  subsidiary of  Mirage
Resorts,  Incorporated in conformity with the requirements of
NRS  361.068(k) and NRS  374 and  any regulations promulgated
thereunder.

         P.O. BOX 7700, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89177-7700

                         EXHIBIT 10.1
<PAGE>
Mr. Stephen A. Wynn
Mirage Resorts, Incorporated
July 31, 1998
Page Two



Please sign below to confirm your agreement to the foregoing.
My signature below confirms Bellagio's agreement thereto.

Very truly yours,

BELLAGIO


By:  ROBERT H. BALDWIN
     ___________________________
     ROBERT H. BALDWIN
     President and Chief
     Executive Officer

I hereby agree to the foregoing.

     STEPHEN A. WYNN
     ___________________________
     STEPHEN A. WYNN


cc:    Bruce A. Levin
       Peter C. Walsh
       James E. Pettis


                              2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2184

___________________________ 

Joshua A. Lapin

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

EverQuote, Inc., also known as EverQuote; John Doe Sender, doing business as 

BuzzBarrelReview.com, doing business as dzlosurverys.com, doing business as 

emails-jobsdelivered.com, doing business as Entirelybelieve.com, doing business 

as JobsDeliver.com, doing business as expectcarecare.com, doing business as 

JobSharkNL.com, doing business as NationalShopperSurvey.com, doing business 

as NationalSurveysOnline.com, doing business as exigentmediagroup.com, doing 

business as enrichedtechnologies.com, doing business as 

ConsumerDigitalSurvey.com, doing business as drivingmarketinggroup.com, 

doing business as surveyandgetpaid.com, doing business as 

tummyheadmediagroup.com, doing business as thebestcreditcheck.com, doing 

business as thefreetree.co, doing business as dlzoffers.com, doing business as 

nationaldigitalsurvey.com, doing business as dealzingo.com, doing business as 

rumorfox.com

 Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________ 

Submitted: March 11, 2024

Filed: March 14, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 
-2- 

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Lapin appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se 

complaint for failure to state a claim. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

this court affirms. 

After careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on 

appeal, this court concludes that Lapin had standing to raise his claims, see

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021); see also Rydholm v. Equifax Info. 

Servs. LLC, 44 F.4th 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 2022) (appellate court can review standing 

for first time on appeal); and finds no basis for reversal, see Jessie v. Potter, 516 

F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); First Colony Life Ins. Co. v. 

Berube, 130 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 1997) (same). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the 

District of South Dakota.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40535

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS OCEGUERA-CALDERON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-97-CR-414-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Jesus Oceguera-Calderon has

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Oceguera has not responded to

this motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
259 La. 872

#### Mary J. CLONEY v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51724.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Paul G. Rocha applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 253 So.2d 83.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law.

McCALEB, C. J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
#### STATE ex rel. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ORLANDO LODGE NO. 25, and Dwight Chastain, et al., Relators, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. 72-935.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Eugene P. Spellman of Law Offices of Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for relators.

Norman F. Burke, of Van Den Berg, Gay, Burke & Dyer, Orlando, for respondents.

Burton M. Michaels, Staff Atty., Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tallahassee, and Ralph A. Marsicano, Gen. Counsel, Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tampa, as amicus curiae.

J. Lewis Hall, of Hall, Hartwell & Hall, Tallahassee, as amicus curiae, Fraternal Order of Police Associates.

Edward D. Cowart, Miami, as amicus curiae, Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Inc.

Thomas A. Capelle and Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Tampa, as amicus curiae, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for alternative writ of mandamus seeks more to establish a legal right than to enforce a clear legal duty already established. Traditionally, such is not the proper function of the writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 1935, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199; State ex rel. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 583; Slaughter v. State ex rel. Harrell, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 126. It further appears that relators have an adequate remedy under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86, F.S. 1971 and it has been held that the writ will not issue when there is another adequate remedy available. See, e. g., Reese v. Golden, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 490. Finally, it affirmatively appears that the legal duty which relators ask this court to command the respondents to perform is not a single act but rather a continuous and continuing series of acts which would require this court to exercise a continuous supervisory jurisdiction to insure that the acts were performed correctly. The writ is *403not appropriate for this purpose. State ex rel. West v. Fla. Coast Line Canal & Transp. Co., 1917, 73 Fla. 1006, 75 So. 582. For these reasons severally, the petition for alternative writ of mandamus is denied, but without prejudice to the rights of the relators to seek, in an appropriate proceeding, an adjudication upon the question of whether the respondents have a legal duty to enter into bilateral collective bargaining negotiations with relators.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 18, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Ford/GM/Chrysler on May 12, 2011

FROM: Don Kopinski

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 12, 2011 between Ford/GM/Chrysler,

NHTSA and EPA staff. The following people attended:

Ford: Cynthia Williams, Ken McAlinden

GM: Barbara Kiss, Dan Frakes

Chrysler: Mike Hartrick

EPA: Byron Bunker, Tony Fernandez, Chris Nevers, Linc Wehrley, Bob Peavyhouse, 

Chuck Moulis, Don Kopinski

NHTSA: Coralie Cooper, Maurice Hicks

The discussion focused on analytically derived CO2. The industry presentation is attached.

Attachment

.
#### WILD KINGDOM, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. George S. HARKINS and Robert T. Coughlan as Trustees of HNC Mortgage and Realty Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, Appellees.

No. 73-597.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Lessee of JAMES ANDERSON *vs.*CURTIS STEAN, sen’r.

*in*ejectment, plaintiff cannot go out of his plot to prove defendant’s possession of othes lands.

Ejectment.

In this case the court ruled, that plaintiff was confined in his proof of defendant’s possession to that land which he marked, and stated on his plot to be in defendant’s possession; that the plot was notice of the land in controversy, and the plaintiff cannot prove defendant to be in possession of lands out of the lines which are marked as covering the land in dispute, and in possession of the defendant.
#### Otis WOODEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1971.

Otis Wooden, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph W. DeMember, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has been granted a belated direct appeal. The circumstances leading to this appeal are reported in Wooden v. State, 236 So.2d 137 (Fla.DCA 1st, 1970), and State v. Wooden, 246 So.2d 755 (Fla.1971). We now proceed to the merits.

The appellant challenges a jury verdict and judgment of conviction of rape (with a recommendation for mercy) of an 11-year-old girl. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing perjured testimony of the prosecutrix and her relatives to be introduced; that his rights were violated when the police took a pair of bloodstained pants from him at his home; and that the trial court erred in denying the defendant a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence.

We have fully reviewed the record in this case and can find no basis to support the foregoing allegations. There was no showing that the testimony complained of was perjured. The evidence is overwhelming as to appellant’s guilt of this dastardly crime. We observe that appellant has been afforded every consideration and his rights have been well guarded by all the courts involved.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Robert James LITTS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-47.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 116

AN ACT

For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 116

AN ACT

For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

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

S 116 ES

1 That, notwithstanding any provision of the Immigration

2 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Fanie Phily

3 Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have been

4 lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent resi5 dence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon

6 payment of the required visa fee. Upon the granting of

7 permanent residence to such alien as provided for in this

8 Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

9 to reduce by the proper number, during the current fiscal

10 year or the fiscal year next following, the total number

11 of immigrant visas which are made available to natives

12 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

13 of such Act, or if applicable, the total number of immi14 grant visas which are made available to natives of the

15 country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

16 Act.

Passed the Senate May 9 (legislative day, May 2),

1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
IV

House Calendar No. 211

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 515

[Report No. 103–695]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen

and fusion research, development, and demonstration programs, and the

high energy physics and nuclear physics programs, of the Department

of Energy, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 10, 1994

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen and fusion research, development, and

demonstration programs, and the high energy physics

and nuclear physics programs, of the Department of

Energy, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen
2

HRES 515 RH

1 and fusion research, development, and demonstration pro2 grams, and the high energy physics and nuclear physics

3 programs of the Department of Energy, and for other pur4 poses. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

5 General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

6 exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

7 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

8 on Science, Space, and Technology. After general debate

9 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five10 minute rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather

11 than by section. Each title shall be considered as read.

12 At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amend13 ment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

14 House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

15 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

16 the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

17 intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 211

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 515

[Report No. 103–695]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4908)

other purposes.grams, of the Department of Energy, and forthe high energy physics and nuclear physics prodevelopment, and demonstration programs, andto authorize the hydrogen and fusion research,

AUGUST 10, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed