alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021391EN.01000802.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 24 June 2021 — TJ v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări

(Case C-392/21)

(2021/C 391/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant (applicant at first instance): TJ

Respondent (defendant at first instance): Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the expression ‘special corrective appliances’, used in Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment, (1) to be interpreted as excluding spectacles with corrective lenses? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the expression ‘special corrective appliances’, used in Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment, (1) to be interpreted as excluding spectacles with corrective lenses?

| 2. | Must the expression ‘special corrective appliances’, used in Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC, be understood solely to mean appliances used exclusively at the place of work and/or in the performance of employment duties? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the expression ‘special corrective appliances’, used in Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC, be understood solely to mean appliances used exclusively at the place of work and/or in the performance of employment duties?

| 3. | Does the obligation to provide a special corrective appliance, provided for by Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC, refer exclusively to the acquisition of the appliance by the employer, or may it be interpreted more broadly, namely to include an obligation upon the employer to reimburse the costs incurred by the worker in purchasing the appliance him or herself? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the obligation to provide a special corrective appliance, provided for by Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC, refer exclusively to the acquisition of the appliance by the employer, or may it be interpreted more broadly, namely to include an obligation upon the employer to reimburse the costs incurred by the worker in purchasing the appliance him or herself?

| 4. | Is it consistent with Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC for an employer to cover such costs by means of a general increase in remuneration which is paid on a continuing basis and referred to as an ‘increase for arduous working conditions’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it consistent with Article 9 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC for an employer to cover such costs by means of a general increase in remuneration which is paid on a continuing basis and referred to as an ‘increase for arduous working conditions’?

---

(1)  OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.

---
258 La. 701

#### Parey P. BRANTON and John G. Schwegmann, Jr. v. STATE BOND AND TAX BOARD.

No. 51430.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1971.

In re: August J. LaNasa applying for writs of certiorari or review.

Writ granted without argument. See cases Nos. 51,412, Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. -, 249 So.2d 908 ; 51,413, Branton v. State Bond and Tax Board, 259 La. -, 249 So.2d 920; and 51,414, Schwegmann v. Parker, 259 La. -, 249 So.2d 921. The present proceeding is consolidated with those.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
I, Thomas J. Koenig, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
    a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      Date:May 13, 2005 By:           /s/ Thomas J. Koenig      Thomas J. Koenig  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
## BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 13

- 00081

- CV

Chris L. Gilbert and Glenn E. Janik

v.

Kate M. Moseley

(No. CC

- 13

- 02405

- D IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 4 OF DALLAS C OUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

CL ERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV E FILING FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV E FILING FEE

FILING FEE PAID TO C OURT THAT

TRANSFERRED CASE $1,054.75 $1,050.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00

$5.00 $5.00 $175.00 PAID

UNKNOWN

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID
TRANSFER

PAID GLENN JANIK

CHRIS GILBERT

MARIA M RAZO

JIM E PENNINGTON

MUNCK WILSON MANDALA , LLP

CHRISTOPHER D KRATOV IL

CHRISTOPHER D KRATOV IL
REBECCA SPRANG

MUNCK WILSON



### Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texar kana, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct

copy o f the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of

the COU RT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this March 4, 2015

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
#### Willie Charles CONLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023071EN.01002901.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

---

Order of the General Court of 22 December 2022 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-480/21) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Annulment by the General Court - Refusal of the Commission to pay default interest - Remedies - Limitation period - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Out of time - Act confirming a previous measure - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 71/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Lyle-Smythe and R. O’Donoghue, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, P. Rossi and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, which it states is based on Article 263 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the applicant, British Airways plc, requests the Court, first, to order the European Commission to pay it the amount of default interest and compound interest allegedly due and, second, to annul the letter of 30 April 2021 and the letter of 2 July 2021, by which the Commission refused to pay it the said interest.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | British Airways plc shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

British Airways plc shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
#### PUBLIC ROADS.

Notice of an application for a road must be full ten days before, arid must state the *place*as well as the *time*of making it.

In the matter of a petition by Benjamin Chandler and others.

It was objected to the order, that due notice had not been given. The notice was on the 27th of April; the court sat on the 7th of May.

The act says that “ written notice of the intention to prefer such petition, and of the day and place of preferring it” shall be given, “ at least ten days before the sitting of the court.”

*The Court*

decided that in accordance with the decisions under the act providing for the recovery of small debts, this act must be taken to require *ten*days’ notice, exclusive of the day of service and return.

In another petition by Joseph Chandler and others, for a public road, the objection to the order was, that the notice did not state the place where the application was to be made, as well as the time.

*The Court*

refused the order on that ground. The act requires a notice of time and place; and under a similar law regulating proceedings in the Orphans’ Court, it is always required.
#### Carl TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and W. E. Whitlock, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case we do not think the trial court committed error in refusing the admissibility of the proffered testimony; *286therefore, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2023296EN.01002801.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-126/21) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Request for an expiry review - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 5(3) and (9) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Legal time limit - Sufficiency of the evidence - Deficiency procedure - Information submitted outside the legal time limit)

(2023/C 296/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia) AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fertilizers Europe (represented by B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’;

| 3. | Orders Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
## Supreme Court Conference Agenda

Tuesday, January 5, 2021

CASES FOR CLASSIFICATION

No. Name

DA 20

- 0257 Phipps v. Old Republic

DA 19

- 0555 State v. C. Kirkland

DA 20

- 0238 ALPS Property v. Keller

DA 19

- 0606 Matter of Z.L., Youth

DA 19

- 0364 State v. J. Marsh

DA 19

- 0583 Beavers v. State



### DA 20

- 0288 B. Smith v. K. Green

DA 20

- 0145 Public Land & Water v. Robbins

DA 20-0217 Matter of T.N.B., A.M.B., and S.M.B.,

YINC

MISCELLANEOUS CASES

No. Name Notes

PR 20

- 0005 Rule V Admission by Practicing Attorney (Blair)

DA 20-0348 Matter of T.G., S.G., & G.B., YINC (Anders
Matter)

DA 20-0345 Matter of LJ.P. & R.P., YINC (Anders
Matter) 01/07/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0004
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis Atkins, Chief 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.

Dated: August 20, 2005

/s/ Dennis AtkinsDennis AtkinsChief Financial Officer

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6147
VIRGINIA C. HIGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK MURRAY; CYNTHIA SHIELDS; HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-1044-5-H) Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virginia C. High, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on her Bivens * complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. High v. Murray , No. CA-96-1044-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Discovery Laboratories,
Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.




Date:
August 9, 2010





/s/ W. Thomas
  Amick


W. Thomas
Amick


Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ John G.
  Cooper


John G.
Cooper


Executive
VicePresident and
Chief Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.




This
certification is being furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
#### W. L. COBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. John W. CARSON et al., Appellees.

No. 73-169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Halina Diener, Respondent, v Jakow G. Diener, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 283]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 30, 1998, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated June 18, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to hold him in contempt of court to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue unless he transferred to the plaintiff funds in a certain individual retirement account, and denied that branch of his cross motion which sought an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing on the issue of contempt is dismissed, as that portion of the order is not appealable as of right, and leave to appeal has not been granted *(see,*CPLR 5701); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

. Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of settlement, the defendant was to transfer certain securities held in an individual retirement account at Smith-Barney to the plaintiff. After the parties entered into the stipulation, the defendant transferred those securities to another account at Citibank. The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to comply with the stipulation by transferring the securities in question.

That portion of the order which directed a hearing on the plaintiffs motion to hold the defendant in contempt is not appealable as of right *(see, Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Correa,*266 AD2d 461; *Marine Midland Bank v Rashid,*259 AD2d 739; *Matter of Town of Babylon v Taxpayer’s Recovery Corp.,*240 AD2d 417; *Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v Evans,*92 AD2d 669), and leave to appeal has not been granted *(cf., Laramee v Laramee,*226 AD2d 680). Bracken, Acting P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### Marie A. PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration, at Seattle, Wash., Appellant, v. WONG KIM YUEN, Appellee.

No. 8440.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1937.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and F. A. Pellegrini, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Adam Beeler and Edwards E. Merges, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of counsel for appellant, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeal in above cause dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court issue forthwith.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1002 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 70

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1002

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 of 
the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast 
                          and cervical cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                May 20 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

                  Ordered to be placed on the Calendar

                                                        Calendar No. 70
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1002

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 of 
the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast 
                          and cervical cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 20 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
 Jeffords, Mr. Thurmond, Mrs. Kassebaum, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Simon, Mr. 
Dodd, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Durenberger, and Mr. 
Harkin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and ordered 
                      to be placed on the Calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 of 
the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast 
                          and cervical cancer.

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

SECTION 1. BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER INFORMATION.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Information Act of 1993''.
    (b) Amendment.--Title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
300 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 1010. BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER INFORMATION.

    ``Each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 shall 
provide, to such individuals as the recipient determines appropriate, 
information (in a culturally competent manner) concerning breast and 
cervical cancer, including information on the need for breast self-
examinations and the skills for such self-examinations, and shall refer 
such clients as the recipient determines appropriate for breast and 
cervical cancer screening, treatment or other services.''.
```