alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022244EN.01003501.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-120/21) (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 244/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, 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: M.-C. Cadilhac, 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 Éric Ruhorimbere to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Éric Ruhorimbere to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
**Exhibit 12.1**

I, Leif Johansson, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AB Volvo (publ);

2.             Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.             The company'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 company 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 the company's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: June 10, 2005                                              /s/ Leif Johansson
#### Power vs. Woolley.

There is no variance between the names “Woolley” and “ Wolley.”

*Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Watkins & Gallagher, for the appellant.

McConaughey, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff Woolley declared on a note executed to him, but in the note, a copy of which is set out in the declaration, his name is spelled Wolley.

Power demurred for the variance between the names, the demurrer was overruled and judgment given for the note— Power appealed,, staying the execution by recognizance of himself and securities.

There is no variance properly pleaded, and there is none to plead.

Let the judgment be affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1128

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the burial in cemeteries

of the National Cemetery System of certain deceased Reservists.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. INOUYE, and

Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the burial

in cemeteries of the National Cemetery System of certain

deceased Reservists.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVISTS FOR BURIAL IN

4 NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL.—Section 2402 of title

6 38, United States Code, is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as

8 paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively; and
2

•S 1128 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the follow2 ing new paragraph (5):

3 ‘‘(5) Any member or former member of the

4 Armed Forces who has performed at least 20 years

5 of service computed under section 1332 of title 10

6 under honorable conditions as determined by the

7 Secretary concerned.’’.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2306(a)(4)

9 of such title is amended by striking out ‘‘2402(5)’’ and

10 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2402(6)’’.

Æ
**Exhibit
23.1**
  **Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589 and 333-48507 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report, dated
February 11, 2005 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Habersham
Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2004.
 
 \s\Porter
      Keadle Moore, LLPAtlanta,
      GeorgiaMarch
      28, 2005
#### Donald C. PLETTS, Appellant, v. Gilbert O. PLETTS, Appellee.

No. 71-835.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Herman Cohen, Miami, Melvyn Trute, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Waldo G. Rothenberg, South Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

This appeal by the plaintiff urges error because of the trial judge’s dismissal of a complaint for specific performance and, in addition, that the court should have allowed the filing of an amended complaint. Appellant urges that he followed the form appendaged to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and set forth as “Form 1.941.” An examination of the complaint reveals that appellant is mistaken in this contention. Although the form calls for an action on a contract which was attached as an exhibit, appellant sued upon an extension of a contract and the extension was not attached. It is obvious from a reading of the complaint that the appellant carefully refrained from a statement as to whether the extension was written or oral.

Counsel for the appellant filed a memorandum of law with the trial court. His position was that unless the complaint showed on its face that the contract was oral, it was not subject to a motion to dismiss upon the basis that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds. This position is supported by Martin v. Highway Equipment Supply Company, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 246. The complaint was, however, insufficient in that it did not have attached a copy of the entire contract sued upon nor did it set forth the terms of the contract adequately. See Patton v. Carlson, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 793. After the court ruled, a petition for rehearing was filed but there was never a petition or an offer to file an amended complaint or to attach the extension as an exhibit.

It is apparent to this court that there was reluctance on the part of appellant’s counsel to reach the controlling issue. He relies for reversal upon a “record error” rather than a prejudicial error. His argument that he was not allowed to amend his complaint now comes too late since it is apparent that he not only failed to tender an amended complaint but he failed to request permission to file one.

*298It has often been stated that it is not the purpose of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to set forth the rules for a game, but that the purpose is to provide a vehicle for the speedy disposition of cases on the basis of the merits. Criado v. Milgram, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 596. We think that appellant has failed to demonstrate error.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Kevin Bauer, 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 27, 2011 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.

Date: June 10, 2011



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/    KEVIN
BAUER                          
|Kevin Bauer                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
[No. 355-3.

Division Three.

October 7, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lonnie Coe, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 4475, Lawrence Leahy, J., entered January 29, 1971. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements No. 2-97977, No. 33-8245, No. 33-78744 and No. 33-65233
of Miltope Group Inc. on Forms S-8 and No. 33-33752 of Miltope
Group Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated February 19, 1999
(March 9, 1999 as to the waiver letter described in Note 5) appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Miltope Group Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
---------------------------
Birmingham, Alabama
March 30, 1999
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

v. ) ID Nos. 2207006408

) 2207006475

CALVIN J. SAMUEL, ) 2207006542

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

1. On this 8th day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant

Calvin J. Samuel’s (“Defendant”)1 pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the 

“Motion”) made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),

2

the 

sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court 

that:

2. On June 23, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to four counts of Robbery in the

Second Degree (Class E Violent Felony). On June 29, 2023, for each count, the 

Superior Court for New Castle County, Delaware, sentenced Defendant to a separate 

period of five years of Level V supervision, suspended after one year without early 

release for eighteen months of Level III supervision.3

1 Defendant’s name is listed elsewhere in the record as Calvin Samuels and Samuel Calvin.

2 D.I.s 2207006408-9, 2207006475-10, 2207006542-8. Defendant does not specifically cite to 

Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court to modify the terms of his sentence.

3 D.I.s 2207006408-7-8, 2207006475-8-9, 2207006542-6-7. The probationary periods of this 

sentence run concurrently with any probation Defendant was already serving at the time of 

sentencing.
2

3. On August 5, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks 

this Court to amend its June 29, 2023 sentencing order to direct the Department of 

Correction to calculate his sentence for the instant Robbery charges concurrently 

with a sentence he says was imposed on him by the Delaware Superior Court for 

Kent County.4

4. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the . . . conditions of partial 

confinement or probation, at any time.” Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3901(d), this Court 

has discretion to “direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal 

defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or 

consecutively with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal 

defendant.”

5. However, this Court lacks the information needed to justify amending the 

sentence order. Though Defendant states that his criminal conduct amounted to a 

“crime spree” across “multiple banks in Delaware’s New Castle and Kent countys 

[sic],”5the grand jury charges to which Defendant pled guilty on June 23, 2023, 

solely pertain to conduct that occurred in “the County of New Castle, State of 

Delaware,” on June 17 and 27, 2022, and July 12, 2022.6 The information currently 

4 D.I.s 2207006408-9, 2207006475-10, 2207006542-8. Defendant attempts to corroborate the 

existence of these sentences by listing two case identification numbers: 2207007952 and 

2207010934. Id.

5

Id.

6 D.I.s 2207006408-3, 2207006475-3, 2207006542-3.
3

available presents no justification for amending the sentence order. Defendant’s 

sentence is proper for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. Hence, 

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

 Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Calvin J. Samuel (SBI #00983771)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,949,478
<SECURITIES>                                22,046,671
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,162,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,299,191
<PP&E>                                       1,184,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,670,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,073,267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,564,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,670,557
<SALES>                                      5,101,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,101,627
<CGS>                                        3,423,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,766,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                857,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                       196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            857,448
<DISCONTINUED>                             (19,902,083)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (19,044,635)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.28)


</TABLE>
ex_234382.htm


 


FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB

ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN


 


A.    The BJ’s Wholesale Club Annual Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.         Section 18 is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:


 


“All awards granted under this Plan shall be subject to the


 


Recoupment of Incentive Compensation Policy adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board on March 3, 2020. The recoupment compensation policy will be applied to any Award that constitutes the deferral of compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code in a manner that complies with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code.”


 


B.    Except as otherwise amended, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all other respects.


 


C.    This First Amendment is effective as of January 18, 2021 (the “Effective Date”).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Analytical Surveys, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-53950, No. 33-59940 and No. 333-47365) on Form S-8 of Analytical Surveys,
Inc. of our report dated January 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999 and
2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
September 30, 2000, which report appears in the September 30, 2000 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc.



KPMG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
January 12, 2001
exhibit47_auchinclossmur






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






Address  Occupation 0. R \)\,, f' R tw'l!R 'i) �)Rt<'. G'v f\ 14  Secret  [*****************************]
No. 72-1083.

#### O’Brien *v.*Franich et al.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
FINAL REGULATION ORDER 

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR 

AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES OPERATED ON 

OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT- BERTH IN A CALIFORNIA PORT 

Adopt new section 2299.3, title 13, chapter 5.1, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), to read as follows: 

(Note: The entire text of section 2299.3 is new language.): 

Section 2299.3. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel 

Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port. 

(a) Any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leases any U.S. or 

foreign-flagged container vessel, passenger vessel, or refrigerated cargo vessel 

that visits a California port, as defined in section 93118.3(c), title 17, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), must comply with section 93118.3 (subject to the 

exemptions therein), relating to the operation of auxiliary diesel engines on 

ocean-going vessels at-berth in a California port. In addition, this section also 

applies to any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a 

California port, as defined in section 93118.3(c)(6), where container, passenger, 

or refrigerated cargo vessels visit. 

(b) This section shall not be construed as expanding or limiting either the 

application or requirements of section 93118.3, title 17, CCR, but is intended to 

alert affected persons of the requirements regarding the operation of auxiliary 

diesel engines on ocean-going vessels at-berth in a California port and other 

provisions in that section. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666 

and 41511, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39650, 39658, 39659, 

39666, 41510, and 41511, Health and Safety Code.
#### In the Interest of D. F. D., a child.

No. 72-521.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Virco Mfg. Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2002, included in the
2001 Annual Report to Stockholders of Virco Mfg. Corporation.

Our audits also include the financial statement schedule of Virco Mfg.
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-65096, Form S-8 No. 333-32539, Form S-8 No. 333-51717 and Form
S-8 No. 333-74832) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation 1993 Stock Incentive
Plan, the Virco Mfg. Corporation 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the Virco Mfg.
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and the Virco Mfg. Corporation 401(K)
Savings Plan, respectively, of our report dated March 15, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Virco Mfg.
Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2002.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Long Beach, California
April 26, 2002
#### SOUTHERN LIFE AND HEALTH INS. v. SMITH.

No. 38468.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 218 So.2d 784.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID KURT SPEARS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2720

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge. 

David Kurt Spears, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.