alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary A. Knox, Plaintiff, *v.*George A. W. Knox, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,

March, 1913.)

Bill of particulars — motion for, in action for divorce —■ denial of motion — divorce.

The defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars in an action for divorce as to the allegation of the complaint that between cer*649tain dates he committed adultery with one whose name was unknown to plaintiff will be denied where the affidavit is made not by defendant but by his attorney.

Motion for a bill of particulars in an action for absolute divorce.

Charles A. MacHenry, for motion.

Burlingame & Sheffield, in opposition.

Benedict, J.

Motion for bill of particulars in action for absolute divorce. The defendant in an action for divorce is not necessarily, and as a matter of course, entitled to a bill of particulars of a general averment in the complaint that between certain dates the defendant committed adultery with a woman whose name is unknown to the plaintiff; but ordinarily, where the application for such a bill of particulars is sustained by the affidavit of the party, showing his probable inability to meet the allegations as set forth in the complaint, without a more particular description or statement of the facts attending the charge, a bill of particulars may be ordered. Carrillo v. Carrillo, *17*Civ. Pro. 220, per Daniels, J., with whom concurred Van Brunt, P. J., and Bartlett, J. In the present case the defendant does not make the affidavit himself; his attorney alone makes it. This is insufficient. *“*notwithstanding the very general nature of the allegation, he may be fully aware of the individual intended to be referred to in making it; and, if he has that knowledge or information, then he cannot be misled or prejudiced in his defense by the omission to state the name or give the description of the person in the complaint, or to designate the place where the misconduct may have occurred. * * * This affidavit of the attorney is wholly insufficient to entitle the defendant to a bill of particulars ; for it fails to establish the fact that the defendant himself is in any manner ignorant of fhe individual, or of the time or place where the adultery is alleged to have taken place.” Per Daniels, J., in case cited.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Attachment F:

Partner Annual Assessment Form

–

Waste P revention and Recycling
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 85

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. BROWN of California submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the first session

of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Science, Space, and Tech3 nology (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

4 ‘‘Committee’’), including expenses for provision of assist5 ance for members of professional staff in obtaining spe6 cialized training under section 202(j) of the Legislative

7 Reorganization Act of 1946, there shall be paid out of the

8 contingent fund of the House not more than $3,090,776.
2

HRES 85 IH

1 (b) Not more than $7,600 of the amount specified

2 in subsection (a) may be used for specialized training re3 ferred to in such subsection.

4 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

5 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

6 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit7 tee on House Administration.

8 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu9 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

10 period beginning at noon January 3, 1993, and ending

11 immediately before noon on January 3, 1994.

12 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

13 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre14 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
# C_2022244EN.01003401.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Ramazazni Shadary v Council

(Case T-119/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazazni Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Emmanuel Ramazani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Emmanuel Ramazani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2022095EN.01003401.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-195/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 95/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 580

Providing for the printing of the revised edition of the Rules and Manual

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1994

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of the revised edition of the Rules

and Manual of the House of Representatives for the

One Hundred Fourth Congress.

Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Fourth

Congress be printed as a House document, and that two

thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound for the

use of the House of Representatives, of which seven hundred

copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House

for distribution to officers and Members of Congress.

Æ
258 La. 703

#### GUARANTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA, Louisiana v. C. & R. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Inc. and Robert E. Clark.

No. 51369.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1971.

In re: E. Cecil Wiley, Trustee for C. & R. Development Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 245 So.2d 450.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Leeroy ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023164EN.01003502.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2023 — TO v EUAA

(Case T-727/21) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - External vacancy notice [confidential] - Decision not to extend the validity of a reserve list - Time limit for complaints - Publication on the internet - No excusable error - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 164/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (represented by: P. Eyckmans and M. Stamatopoulou, acting as Agents, and T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of Decision EASO/HR/2020/2331 of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) of 18 December 2020 not to extend, by an additional year, the validity of the reserve list drawn up following selection procedure [confidential] on which her name appeared and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders TO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roubik Gregorian certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROUBIK GREGORIAN                        
|Roubik Gregorian                               
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2021138EN.01002101.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 15 February 2021 — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-92/21)

(2021/C 138/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VW

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred

Is a remedy, provided for by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)

Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an appeal against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---
**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; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:      November 13, 2006 By:  /s/ Thomas J. Koenig   Thomas J. Koenig    Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer (Principal Financial Officer and
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Ridenour, Phil < PRidenou@washco-md.net> 

Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:21 PM 

Swanson, Brian (OSD; Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Larsen, Greg; David Hackett; Tom Cooper 

HGR Comments 

Good afternoon Dennis and Brian, 

DOl- 05f'-2.00ftt~ 2.6220 

After receiving the e-mail below from David Hackett representing Sun Air, LLC, Hagerstown Regional Airport 

concurs that the Essential Air Service contract should be awarded to Sun Air with service to lAD to commence 

as soon as possible. According to their latest e-mail, they have fulfilled the obligations we had a concern with 

and we look forward to working with them to get the new service established at HGR. 

If you have any questions or need further clarification, feel free to contact me, 

Thanks very much for all your efforts and support of the EAS program and Hagerstown Regional Airport! 

Best regards, 

Phil 

Phil Ridenour, C.M. 

Airport Director 

Hagerstown Regional Airport 

18434 Showalter Rd 

Hagerstown, MD 21742 

240-313-2777 

Cell- 301-573-1360 

www.flyhagerstown.com 

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success. 

cften"'J. <fotd 

From: David Hackett [mailto:davidfhackett@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:59 PM 

To: Ridenour, Phil; Larsen, Greg 

Cc: Tom Cooper 

Subject: DOT Comments 

PhilI spoke to Greg a couple of days ago and mentioned that clarifying comments should be sent to DOT about the Sun Air 

bid. I do think we have all the bases covered, particularly now that the IAD gate access has been resolved (we are not 

going to use United and thus will have more schedule flexibility). I think it would be preferable if you sent a follow-up 

letter, but if Sun Air needs to do it Mr Cooper will send something in. 

1 
To recap: 

1. As you saw, we now have the show cause order for scheduled authority, as anticipated. 

2. The interline agreements are set (we will have all the majors except for Southwest and JetBiue). 

3. The aircraft have already been purchased and are on the ramp in FLL ready to go (one plane will be reallocated from 

its current service to give us three). 

4. IAD facilities have been obtained. 

5. We will want to work with you on marketing to make sure the community knows better service is available. We will 

want to take direction from you on what to do and where. There is no real fixed budget ..... we will want to do what 

makes sense and is needed, but naturally have to watch the overall expenditure. 

Let me know if you have other questions, and how you would like to follow up with DOT. 

Thanks. 

Best regards 

David Hackett 

561-789-1050 

2
# C_2023007EN.01002601.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022 — The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO — Bilkiewicz (Shape of a baby’s bottle)

(Case T-273/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a baby’s bottle - Genuine use of the mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 7/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Bazooka Companies, Inc. (New York, New York, United States), authorised to replace The Topps Company, Inc. (represented by: D. Wieddekind and D. Wiemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: P. Ratnicki-Kiczka, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 March 2021 (Case R 1326/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Grants The Bazooka Companies, Inc., leave to replace The Topps Company, Inc., as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Grants The Bazooka Companies, Inc., leave to replace The Topps Company, Inc., as applicant;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 March 2021 (Case R 1326/2020-2); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 March 2021 (Case R 1326/2020-2);

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by The Bazooka Companies; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by The Bazooka Companies;

| 4. | Orders Mr Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---