alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020329EN.01001501.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case T-578/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution - First subparagraph of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Continued breach of capital requirements - Negligent breach - Rights of defence - Amount of the penalty - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 329/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance (Massy, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the ECB of 16 July 2018, taken pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) and imposing on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 200 000 for continued breach of the capital requirements laid down in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on CA Consumer Finance an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 200 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on CA Consumer Finance an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 200 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders CA Consumer Finance to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders CA Consumer Finance to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the ECB to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ECB to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Mark A. Houser, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the registrant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 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 the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: March 30, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director
 22
#### W. H. Downing, *Appellant,*v. J. W. Barrett, *Appellee.*

Decision Filed March 30, 1915.

Per Curiam.

This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the *349court that there is no error in the said decree; it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed; it is further ordered that the appellee do have and recover of and from the appellant his costs by him in this behalf expended, which costs are taxed at the sum of |........, all of which is ordered to be certified to the court below.

Appeal from Circuit Court for Columbia County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27559]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Resilient Infrastructure + Secure Energy 
Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 3, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Resilient 
Infrastructure + Secure Energy Consortium (``RISE'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Beacon Industries, 
Inc., Newington, CT; IEEECyber Security, Inc., York, PA; Mechanical 
Solutions, Inc., Whippany, NJ; MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, VA; 
NGU Sports Lighting, Palm Beach Gardens, FL; Potorti Enterprises, Inc., 
Floyds Knobs, IN; and Venturi LLC, Huntsville, AL have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and RISE intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On July 2, 2021, RISE filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 
23, 2021 (86 FR 47155).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 7, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 26, 2023 (88 FR 66057).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27559 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATIONS
(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955)
 1.
    
    Name of corporation: Great Western Land and Recreation, Inc.2.
    
    By resolution of the board of directors pursuant to a provision in the articles of
incorporation, this certificate establishes the following regarding the voting powers,
designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of the following
class or series of stock:
   3.      Effective date of filing (optional):(must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)
 4.
    
    Officer Signature: /s/ Jay N. Torok, CEO




---



##### 



CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
 OF
SERIES F CALLABLE CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
OF
GREAT WESTERN LAND AND RECREATION, INC.
(PURSUANT TO SECTION 78-196 OF THE
NEVADA REVISED STATUTES)
 Section 78-196
  Series F Callable Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock
 I. Designation and Amount
  II. Rank
  - 1 -




---



##### 



III. Dividends
  For the first year from Date of Issuance
    
    Zero Dollars ($0.00) per shareFor the second year from Date of Issuance
    
    One Dollar ($1.00) per shareFor the third year from Date of Issuance
    
    Two Dollars ($2.00) per shareFor the fourth year from Date of Issuance
    
    Three Dollars ($3.00) per shareFor the fifth year from Date of Issuance
    
    Four Dollars ($4.00) per shareFor the sixth year from Date of Issuance
And thereafter
    
    Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($4.50) per share
   - 2 -




---



##### 



IV. Liquidation Preference
   V. Redemption
  - 3 -




---



##### 



VI. Restrictions on Dividends
  - 4 -




---



##### 



VII. Voting Rights
   Conversion
    - 5 -




---



##### 



- 6 -




---



##### 



IX. Additional Definitions
       X. Miscellaneous
    - 7 -




---



##### 



28 th June
 GREAT WESTERN LAND AND RECREATION, INC., a Nevada corporationBy:
    /s/ Jay N. TorokName:
    
    Jay N. TorokTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 ATTEST:/s/ Leticia F. CruzName: Leticia F. CruzTitle: Assistant Secretary/Treasurer
 - 8 -
# C_2019155EN.01005801.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/58

---

Order of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)

(Case T-311/18) (1)

(2019/C 155/68)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. O’Brien, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: August 9, 2006                                                 /s/ Thomas C. O'Brien   Thomas C. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer           This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
Notice: The information collected on this worksheet will be shared with USDA cooperators and foreign National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) 

officials to obtain the release of the shipment listed above. 

ES– 05/2010-01 

Held Shipment Worksheet 

To: Export Services, attention: Date: Fax: (301) 734-7639 

From: Email address: Phone: 

Exporter Contact Information 

Exporter’s name: 

Email address: Phone: 

Location of Held Shipment 

Country: Port of entry: 

Dated shipped: Date shipment held: 

Contact name at point of entry: Contact information: 

Commodity Information

Common name: 

 

Botanical name: 

Plant Part: Estimated value of the commodity: $ 

Certificate Issuance 

Was an export certificate issued? Yes No 

Enter certificate number(s): 

If all the pertinent information is in PCIT, only submit this form 

Copies of the following should be attached, if pertinent to the consignment: 

• Rejection notice from the foreign NPPO 

• U.S. or foreign phytosanitary certificate or export certificate 

• Import permit or other form of official communication from NPPO stating import requirements 

• Inspectional records 

• Laboratory analyses 

• Field inspection records 

• Treatment documentation 

• Container numbers

• Bill of lading

Reason for Held Shipment
#### Rosa v. Rosa

20904

10/20/98

Vacated & Remanded
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

USDA Holds Due to Potential Plant

Health Risk

Last Modified: 

Print

Learn what a "USDA Hold" is, why shipments may be placed on hold, and what to

expect if this happens to you.

USDA Hold: What It Means

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

inspects goods entering the United States. When a CBP inspector needs to verify

that a shipment has the appropriate entry documentation or sees a risk of a plant

pest or disease, they will place that shipment on a USDA hold until they can inspect

it more thoroughly. While the alert may say USDA, in most cases, CBP is actually

placing the hold.

If your plant shipment–or shipments of non-plant products in wood packaging

material–is delayed, you may receive notice that your shipment has been placed on

this USDA hold. Your broker can also confirm its status.

What To Expect If Your Shipment Is On Hold
Inspections can sometimes take multiple business days to carry out at ports with

high import volumes. The process varies depending on how the port is set up and

what CBP is looking for.

Please be patient. The hold may likely mean that CBP hasn't gotten to it yet, and it

could be temporary. If CBP or APHIS confirm a problem during inspection, they will

issue an emergency action notice that communicates what they found and the

options you have to resolve it.

What You Can Do

Commercial Importers

The best person to contact is your broker. This person may be able to get you

answers the fastest.

Double check the entry requirements for your shipment to make sure you

followed all directions.

Double check your permit application to verify you accurately described the

contents of your shipment. Your customs entry should provide a full and

complete description of your shipment's contents and answer specific questions

such as:

1. The country of origin of the merchandise and manufacturer

2. The composition of the merchandise

3. The item's intended use

4. Pricing and payment information (to properly determine the value of the

shipment)

For more information on the classification of merchandise, consult the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS). It contains the actual HTS number and tariff classification

guidelines that explain how to properly classify merchandise.

Online Shoppers 

If you bought plants or plant products online and your shipment hasn't arrived when

you expected, there is no doubt you are enduring a frustrating experience. This is a

common issue for online shoppers. Here's what you can do:

Learn about the steps for buying plants or seeds online. If you didn't follow

these steps, your shipment may be on hold due to a paperwork issue.
Call your express courier (for example DHL or FedEx). If a pest is found or the

shipment doesn't meet U.S. import requirements, CBP will contact your courier

via "emergency action notice" to discuss the issue and what your options are.
EPRI

TCLP Results

Mined Gypsum

units 279 281 283 285 287 289 291 293 295 301 303

pH 5.4 5.0 6.4 6.7 5.4 6.9 7.5 5.6 7.0 6.4 6.5

Ag mg/L <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017

As mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Ba mg/L 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.02

Cd mg/L 0.01 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037

Cr mg/L <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018

Pb mg/L <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062

Se mg/L <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089

Hg ug/L 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.018 0.011 0.011
# C_2019103EN.01001301.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND

(Case C-827/18)

(2019/C 103/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kamenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MC

Defendant: ND

Question referred

Is the disputed principal claim for EUR 535, based on a notarial purchase contract of 10 February 2016 for the purchase of a residential apartment located in Großröhrsdorf, falling under the jurisdiction of the Local Court, Kamenz, which, derived specifically from the transfer of possession and enjoyment to the applicant on 1 April 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the notarial contract, was still effected by means of the defendant’s tenant’s rental payment on 1 April 2016 in respect of the residential apartment [...] to be regarded as proceedings within the meaning of Article 22 of the Lugano Convention, (1) which have as their object the payment in respect of a right in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, or is the international jurisdiction of a German court to be derived from another provision of the Lugano Convention, or [is] the international jurisdiction of the Swiss court which has jurisdiction in respect of the defendant’s domicile justified (Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 5 No 1 of the Lugano Convention)?

---

(1)  Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (‘Lugano II Convention’) (OJ 2009 L 147, p. 5).

---
September 1 , 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ELIZABETH BRAZEAL , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00570

- CV V.

III STEPHEN, INC. , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 26, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Elizabeth Brazeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
122 P.3d 21

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Van Alderwerelt

26161

10/13/2005

Dismissed

108 Hawai'i 401, 120 P.3d 1136
# C_2019016EN.01003001.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-656/18)

(2019/C 16/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Erding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 7 November 2018.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7638

CHARLES E. BOYLES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON,

Director of Prisons,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-05-75-7-JCT)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. Boyles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles E. Boyles, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings

by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boyles

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyles’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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. 

DISMISSED