alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022084EN.01003001.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/30

---

Action brought on 16 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-789/21)

(2022/C 84/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Malferrari and Iv. Zalogin)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), and in particular Article 166 of Directive 2017/1132 and Annex III thereto, Parts A and B, footnote 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), and in particular Article 166 of Directive 2017/1132 and Annex III thereto, Parts A and B, footnote 2;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In breach of the abovementioned provisions of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS).

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Garvin Buckmire, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 9]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered December 14, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment to the extent of reducing the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the third degree weapon possession count reinstated.

The People established a prima facie case of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The elevator in the office building where defendant, a stockbroker, worked and where he left his loaded and operable firearm cannot be considered his "place of business” within the plain and ordinary meaning of that term.

The "place of business” and "home” exceptions included in Penal Law § 265.02 (4) have not been statutorily defined, but both have been construed narrowly by the courts in an effort to balance "the State’s strong policy to severely restrict possession of any firearm” *(People v Maniscalco,*198 AD2d 378, 379 [citing *People v Powell,*54 NY2d 524], *lv denied*82 NY2d 927), with its policy to treat with leniency persons attempting to protect certain areas in which they have a possessory interest and to which members of the public have limited access *(see, e.g., People v Maniscalco, supra*[car parked in driveway not within "home” exception]; *People v Powell, supra*[common hallway outside a group residence not within "home” exception]; *People v Cross,*174 AD2d 313 [social club held not to be a "place of business”], *lv denied*78 NY2d 964). In circumstances such as these, which include defendant’s admissions that his *152possession of the firearm was for personal reasons unrelated to his employment and that he had no legitimate reason to bring the firearm to his workplace and where the offense occurred in an elevator accessible to large numbers of people, the courts have declined to apply the "place of business” exception *(People v Fearon,*58 AD2d 1041 [employee not entitled to the exception where he used firearm at workplace to settle a personal vendetta], *cert denied*434 US 1036; *People v Francis,*45 AD2d 431 [postal worker not entitled to the exception where he possessed firearm at workplace for reasons unrelated to his duties], *affd*38 NY2d 150; *People v Rondon,*109 Misc 2d 394 [possession at a not-for-profit social club by manager-director of the club held not within the exception]). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ. *(See,*167 Misc 2d 581.)
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10.22


                    AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         AGREEMENT dated as of November 1, 1995 between Lawrence J. Gillis
("Employee") and Roto-Rooter, Inc. (the "Company").

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company have entered into an Employment
Agreement dated December 11, 1991 ("Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend the Employment
Agreement in certain respects.

         NOW, THEREFORE, Employee and the Company mutually agree that the
Employment Agreement shall be amended, effective as of November 1, 1995 as
follows:

         A.    The date of November 6, 1997 set forth in Section 1.2 of the
               Employment Agreement, is hereby deleted and the date of November
               6, 1998 is hereby substituted therefor.

         B.    The base salary amount of $177,000 per annum as set forth in the
               first sentence of Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is
               hereby deleted and the base salary amount of $191,000 per annum
               is hereby substituted therefor.

         Except as specifically amended by this Amendment No. 5 to Employment
Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in
accordance with its original terms, conditions and provisions.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this amendatory
agreement as of the date first above written.

                                        EMPLOYEE


                                        /s/ Lawrence J. Gillis   
                                        ------------------------------------


                                        ROTO-ROOTER, INC.


                                        /s/ William R. Griffin   
                                        ------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-10249, 333-10251, 333-21253, 333-81855, 333-97195 and 333-126026) on Form
S-8 of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. of our report dated February 10, 2006,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in
the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.

                                       /s/ KMPG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 24, 2006
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------
         Section 1350 Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of 1st Independence
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005
(the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: July 29, 2005        /s/ N. William White
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     N. William White
                                Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


                            /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     R. Michael Wilbourn
                                Title:    Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 755 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 755

      Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2014

    Mr. Joyce (for himself, Mr. Takano, Mr. Meehan, and Ms. Norton) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week.

Whereas November 16 through November 22, 2014, marks the 93rd annual observance 
        of American Education Week;
Whereas public schools are the backbone of the Nation's democracy, providing 
        young people with the tools they need to maintain the Nation's precious 
        values of freedom, civility, and equality;
Whereas, by equipping young people in the United States with both practical 
        skills and broader intellectual abilities, public schools give them hope 
        for, and access to, a productive future;
Whereas people working in the field of public education, be they teachers, 
        higher education faculty and staff, paraeducators, custodians, 
        substitute educators, bus drivers, clerical workers, food service 
        professionals, workers in skilled trades, health and student service 
        workers, security guards, technical employees, or librarians, work 
        tirelessly to serve children and communities throughout the Nation with 
        care and professionalism; and
Whereas public schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults, 
        children, educators, volunteers, business leaders, and elected officials 
        in a common enterprise: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of American Education 
        Week; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        American Education Week by reflecting on the positive impact of 
        all those who work together to educate children.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023071EN.01002401.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Ekobulkos v Commission

(Case T-702/21) (1)

(State aid - Production of electricity from renewable sources - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Call to act - Admissibility - Obligation to act - None)

(2023/C 71/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Ekobulkos EOOD (Todorichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Dimitrov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C.-M. Carrega and C. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 265 TFEU, the applicant, Ekobulkos EOOD, requests that the General Court declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a position on its complaint, submitted on 21 February 2020, concerning an alleged State aid measure granted by the Republic of Bulgaria and favouring certain producers of electricity from renewable sources.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ekobulkos EOOD and the European Commission each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ekobulkos EOOD and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---
#### Ruth B. ROULEAU, City Clerk and Voting Registrar, City of Miami Beach, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel., Jack J. ROZEN, Appellee.

No. 67-441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 18, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TARIQ BELT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:05-cr-00549-WDQ)

Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard L. Cardin, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher

J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tariq Belt appeals his conviction and sentence to one

year in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading

guilty to possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)

(2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (2000). We affirm.

Belt contends the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over his prosecution because there was no verified

complaint, the district court is not a “common law court,”

prosecutions may not be brought in the name of the government, and

he is a sovereign who unwittingly relinquished his freedom to the

United States. These claims are utterly devoid of merit. Subject

matter jurisdiction over a federal prosecution is conferred on the

district court by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2000). United States v.

Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 716 (4th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “there can

be no doubt that Article III permits Congress to assign federal

criminal prosecutions to federal courts.” Hugi v. United States,

164 F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir. 1999). 

Belt also contends that the district court lacked

jurisdiction because he was operating as a “government agent” at

the time of the offense. During Belt’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing

before the district court, Belt agreed with the Government’s

account of the underlying events, admitting that he was guilty of

the crime of possession of cocaine. Belt was arrested following a

controlled drug sale with a government informant, and there is no
- 3 -

evidence that Belt was operating as a “government agent” during the

narcotics transaction that gave rise to the charge. This claim

lacks a factual or legal basis.

Accordingly, we affirm Belt’s conviction and sentence.

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
Argued and submitted April 26,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing May 29, 2002

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MIKE LEE FIEZ, *Appellant.*

CR0002075; A114902

47 P3d 529

Rankin Johnson IV, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Oregon Public Defender.

Brendan Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*657PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, and attempted first-degree rape, ORS 163.375, after a plea of no contest. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 75 months’ imprisonment on the sexual abuse conviction and imposed a consecutive sentence of 10 years’ probation on the attempted rape conviction. Over defendant’s objections, the court further imposed a compensatory fine of $1,500 for each of the two victims. Defendant argues on appeal that a compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of defendant’s activities. *See generally State v. Barkley,*315 Or 420, 846 P2d 390, *cert den*510 US 837 (1993); *State v. Donahue,*165 Or App 143, 995 P2d 1202 (2000). The state concedes that the record in this case contains no evidence that the victims suffered pecuniary damages. We find the state’s concession to be well founded and we accept it.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                                                    NEWS RELEASE

[CELERIS CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: PAUL R. JOHNSON
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         (615) 341-0223

              CELERIS CORPORATION RECEIVES REVERSAL OF DECISION ON
           DAVID FOSTER ET. AL V. SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., ET. AL

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

   COMPANY INTENDS TO PETITION MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF DECISION

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (May 17, 2000) -- Celeris Corporation (Nasdaq/NM:CRSC)
today announced that the Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued an opinion
reversing a lower court decision that had held that the Company's directors and
officers insurance policies covered claims for any monetary liabilities and
expenses associated with the Company's ongoing securities class action
litigation and Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. The Minnesota
Court of Appeals concluded that coverage is barred by the policies' retroactive
date exclusion. The Company intends to pursue a review of the appellate decision
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

         Celeris Corporation is a provider of specialty clinical research
services and information technology services that expedite and streamline the
clinical trial and regulatory submission process for pharmaceutical, medical
device and biotechnology manufacturers.

         This press release may contain "forward-looking" statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking
statements include statements of intent, belief or current expectations of
Celeris Corporation and its management. Such forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future results and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause
actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that may cause such
differences include but are not limited to (1) the possibility that the
Minnesota Supreme Court will not accept the Company's petition for review of the
appellate decision; (2) the possibility that any review by the Minnesota Supreme
Court will not be favorable to the Company; (3) possible adverse outcomes
related to the Company's shareholder lawsuits or the SEC investigation that
could have a material adverse impact on the Company and its financial position;
and (4) other risk factors detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, including the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

                                      -END-
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Joseph C. Sienkiewicz, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Royce Biomedical, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within 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 and presented in 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; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Joseph C. Sienkiewicz



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



Joseph C. Sienkiewicz

Chief Financial Officer