alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01003901.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Shakutin v Council

(Case T-141/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 252/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of, first, Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426I, p. 1); second, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 189) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 29); and, third, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
**Exhibit 31****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Richard E. Gaetz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control 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 employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: July 20, 2005     /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ     Richard E. Gaetz
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), UHD Alliance, Inc. (“UHD Alliance”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arcadyan Technology Corporation, Hsinchu City, TAIWAN, and Onkyo Corporation, Osaka, JAPAN, have been added as parties to this venture.                

                    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned                           ( print page 31776)                        activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.                

                    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 8, 2018. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15175).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-14574 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMBASSADORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.



|1. | Ambassadors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Cypress Reinsurance, Ltd, a Bermuda corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------



|4. | Ambassadors Marine Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | BellPort Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Marine Group, LLC
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. | American West Steamboat Company, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|7. | EN Boat LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | QW Boat LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | DQSC Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|10. | DQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|11. | AQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|12. | MQ Boat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Cruise Group, LLC
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Nishida Tekko America Corporation, a California corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ambassadors Marine Group, LLC
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|14. | BMI Acquisition Company, a Washington corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nishida Tekko America Corporation
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 92 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 92

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 18, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees:
    Committee on the District of Columbia: Alan Wheat, Missouri; Jim McDermott, 
Washington; Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia; Sander M. Levin, 
Michigan; John Lewis, Georgia; and William J. Jefferson, Louisiana.
    Committee on Government Operations: John M. Spratt, Jr., South Carolina, to 
rank following Edolphus Towns, New York.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 31323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14487]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 31323]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2018-09 of June 4, 2018

                
Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem 
                Embassy Act

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 
                1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the ``Act''), I hereby 
                determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the 
                national security interests of the United States, to 
                suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set 
                forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

                You are authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination, accompanied by a report in accordance 
                with section 7(a) of the Act, to the Congress and to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register.

                The suspension set forth in this determination shall 
                take effect after you transmit this determination and 
                the accompanying report to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 4, 2018

[FR Doc. 2018-14487
Filed 7-2-18; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
# C_2022463EN.01003301.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Grieger v Commission

(Case T-517/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Secondment - Commitment to reassign to a middle management post at the end of the secondment - Request to be reassigned - Interests of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2022/C 463/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Grieger (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 29 October 2020 refusing his request to be reassigned to a middle management post and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 11 May 2021 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Rejects the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the action;

| 2. | Orders M. Vladimir Grieger to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M. Vladimir Grieger to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B ILLY C E PER O, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10124

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00178-PM P M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Philip M . Pro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. B illy C e pe ro a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing a s m oot his m otion to c o m

pe l his form e r c ounse l to re t urn his c a se file . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt de nie d C e pe ro’ s m otion be c a use it found tha

t form e r 

# FIL ED APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ounse l ha d a lre a d y re turne d the e ntire c a se file to C e p e ro. W e re vie wthis fa c tua l finding for c le ar e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Yi , 704 F.3d 800, 805 (9th C ir. 2013), and thec ourt’ s de nia l of C e pe ro’ s m otion for a buse of disc re t ion. S

e e Unite d State s v . Anthony , 93 F.3d 614, 616 (9th C ir. 1996). B e c a use the re c ord supports the d istric t c o urt’ s finding, it did not a buse its disc re t ion in deny i ng C e pe ro’ s m otion. To the e xte nt C e pe ro c h a lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion for a p pointm e nt of a

ppe lla te c ounse l a

nd theunde rly i ng Ja

n ua ry 30, 2012, judgm e nt, we de c line to c onside r the se argum e nts be c a use the y are outsidethe sc ope o f this a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 1 2 4 2
#### Dr. JOSEPH MAULL *vs. Z.*P. WILSON, WILLIAM WILSON and J. S. DUTTON.

An action on the case lies for carelessly carrying fire, whereby plaintiff’s stack-yard was destroyed; but not for an *accidental*burning; nor for a *wilful*burning.

Action on the case for carelessly burning plaintiff’s straw and fodder.

The defendants were going to the bay for fish, and called at plaintiff’s farm-house about *two*o’clock in the morning of the 13th of October. and asked for fire. The tenant gave them a brand ; and, it being windy, and as the road passed near the stack-yard where there was a large quantity of hay and fodder, he cautioned them to be careful of the sparks. One of them replied, jestingly, that if he was so uneasy about the fire, he would put it in his pocket. They rode off, carrying the brand on horseback; and that night the hay and fodder, valued at ©45 00, were destroyed by fire.

*Wootten*and *Rogers,*for plaintiff,

contended, that the carrying a fire brand on horseback near a stack-yard on a windy night, was itself such negligence as would make the defendants liable; and that the burning of this hay under such circumstances, it having been discovered to be on fire shortly after they passed, was sufficient evidence that the fire originated from this cause.

*Ridgely,*contra,

insisted that there was not satisfactory evidence that defendants burnt the hay, much less that it arose from negligence. That they were travelling a public road, and took alt the care of their fire they could ; that they were not liable for mere accident even if the fire was communicated by them ; and that they were not liable in this form of action, either for a wilful or a *direct*burning, which would be a *trespass.*

*The Court*

charged the jury—

1st. That if the fire were wilfully and *directly*thrown on the hay, this action could not be sustained.

*444
      *Wootten*and *Rogers,*for plaintiff.

C. *G. Ridgely,*for defendants.

2d. That if the fire arose from *mere*accident without any negligence on the part of defendants, they were not liable.

3d. That if the fire fell on or was communicated to the hay, not merely by accident, but by the *carelessness*and *negligence*of defendants, they were answerable in this action in damages to the full value of the property destroyed.

The jury must be satisfied that the fire originated from the defendants. Presumptive or circumstantial evidence of this would be sufficient if it was so strong as to satisfy the mind of the fact. The plaintiff was bound to make such circumstances out in proof; and, additionally, to show that the defendants were guilty of carelessness or negligence in the use of their fire, so as to occasion the burning.

Verdict for defendants.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 406 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 406

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 18, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 821), to 
amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial in national 
cemeteries to persons who have 20 years of service creditable for retired pay as 
members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table to the 
end that the Senate amendment thereto be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with 
amendments as follows:
    In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate 
to the text of the bill, insert the following:

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN RESERVISTS AND DEPENDENTS FOR BURIAL 
              IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    (a) Reservists.--Section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph 
(7):
            ``(7) Any person who at the time of death was entitled to 
        retired pay under chapter 67 of title 10 or would have been 
        entitled to retired pay under that chapter but for the fact 
        that the person was under 60 years of age.''.
    (b) Dependents.--Paragraph (5) of such section is amended by 
inserting ``and paragraph (7)'' after ``paragraphs (1) through (4)''.

    Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend title 38, United 
States Code, to extend eligibility for burial in national cemeteries to 
persons who have 20 years of service creditable for retired pay as 
members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces and to their 
dependents.''.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Paul Sanford FARANS, Relator, v. The Honorable Murray GOODMAN, Criminal Court Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, and Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney, Respondents.

No. 71-928.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.