alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021138EN.01000701.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

(Case C-673/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum and immigration - Directive 2008/115/EC - Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15 - Refugee staying illegally in the territory of a Member State - Detention for the purpose of transfer to another Member State - Refugee status in that other Member State - Principle of non-refoulement - No return decision - Applicability of Directive 2008/115)

(2021/C 138/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from placing in administrative detention a third-country national residing illegally on its territory, in order to carry out the forced transfer of that national to another Member State in which that national has refugee status, where that national has refused to comply with the order to go to that other Member State and it is not possible to issue a return decision to him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
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, each of the undersigned officers of Hana Biosciences, Inc. do hereby certify that:
  (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Hana Biosciences, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hana Biosciences, Inc.
  Dated: November 12, 2004:

/s/ Mark J. AhnMark J. AhnPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: November 12, 2004
/s/ John P. IparraguirreJohn P. IparraguirreChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10(u)

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE

PCS SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR U.S. EXECUTIVES

The PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives, effective as of January 1, 1999 (the Plan), as heretofore amended,
is hereby further amended effective as January 1, 2014:



|1. | The second paragraph of Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless the Committee determines otherwise, in computing the monthly benefit under this section, no benefit shall accrue for the period of
service with White Spring Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. before November 1, 1995; with the Arcadian Corporation before March 1, 1997; or with PCS Sales (USA), Inc. before January 1, 1999. Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective for
Participants who are actively employed on or after January 1, 2014, an active Participant shall accrue a benefit under this section for his or her total benefit service with the Arcadian Corporation. For purposes of this section,
benefit service shall have the meaning set forth in Supplement B to the Pension Plan.



|2. | In all other respects, the Plan remains unchanged.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------

EXECUTED on this 25 day of February, 2014.



POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.By:

/s/ L. Knafelc




|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of:
|                                               
|David R. Haverick                              
|Name of Witness                                
|                                               
|/s/ D. Haverick                                
|Signature of Witness
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-2964 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-206-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modification of 

fwd pressure 

Bulkhead

21.0 $1,785.0

0

$0 $1,785.00 48 $85,680.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $85,680

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Bennett, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered March 1, 1989, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and attempted escape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the propriety of the trial court’s charge on the issue of evaluating the credibility of two witnesses, one of whom had entered into a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s Office, has not been preserved for appellate review due to the defendant’s failure to object to that portion of the charge *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818). In any event, we reject the defendant’s argument that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s instructions regarding the witnesses’ credibility. The defense counsel thoroughly examined the possible partiality of the two witnesses on cross-examination. Moreover, during that portion of its charge concerning interested witnesses, the court noted that one of the witnesses had entered into a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s Office. Although the trial court did not specifically charge the jury that, "in assessing credibility, the interest, bias, prejudice and prior convictions of the witnesses, as well as any benefit conferred upon them, should [be] considered” *(People v Sherman,*156 AD2d 889, 891; *see, People v Jackson,*74 NY2d 787, 790; *see also,*1 CJI[NY] 7.19, at 303), the trial court’s failure to do so. under the circumstances of this case, does not *252warrant reversal *(see, People v Sherman, supra; People v Dewindt,*156 AD2d 706).

We find that the trial court properly refused to give a missing witness charge with respect to the failure of the decedent’s wife to testify. The defendant did not request a missing witness charge until after both sides had rested. Since the defendant was on notice that the People would not be calling the decedent’s wife as a witness, the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge was untimely *(see, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424; *People v Bradley,*160 AD2d 808; *People v Watson,*134 AD2d 729). In any event, the testimony of the decedent’s wife would have been cumulative *(see, People v Gonzalez, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# C_2020287EN.01002402.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/24

---

Order of the Court of 10 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — QE, RD v SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

(Case C-766/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Generalised malfunction in an airport’s refuelling system)

(2020/C 287/36)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: QE, RD

Defendant: SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

Other party: ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (District Court, Azores, Portugal), by decision of 8 July 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
#### S. D. LENNOX, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error,

No. A-13047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 27, 1961.

William M. Fancher, Hollis, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction, judgment and sentence based on an information filed in the District Court of Harmon County, Oklahoma, charging James McDonald, S. D. Lennox, and Leon Taylor with the offense of Grand Larceny while acting together and in concert on July 29, 1960. Separate trials were granted, a jury was impaneled and the case was tried wherein defendant was found guilty and sentenced to serve a term of one year and one day in the State Penitentiary. From this judgment and sentence this appeal has been perfected.

Oral argument was set for July 26, 1961, at which time neither the defendant nor counsel appeared and no brief was filed. Under these conditions this court has repeatedly held that we can search the record only for fundamental error and none being found the judgment and sentence will be *395affirmed. Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771; Epps v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 460, 104 P.2d 262; Riner v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 442, 172 P.2d 345.

We have carefully examined the record and find that it supports the conviction and is free from fundamental error. The same is therefore affirmed.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2019044EN.01007801.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/78

---

Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

(Case T-713/18)

(2019/C 44/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ESIM Chemicals — Application for registration No 14 465 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 1267/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5;

| — | in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Louis Gabrielly et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Charles R. Mailley et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

October 21, 1959.

*Brand, Morgan & Brand*for plaintiffs.

*Martin A. Crean*for defendants.

Mabio Pittoui, J.

Motion by the plaintiffs for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiffs claim that it was 10:00 p.m., that it was raining and the streets were wet, that their vehicle approached the intersection, slowed down to 20 miles per hour, and that their car was hit in the rear by the defendants’.

The defendants claim that they were going about 25 miles per hour, and when 50 to 75 feet behind the plaintiffs ’ automobile the plaintiffs ’ automobile came to a sudden stop, without signal-ling, and without the stop signals operating, and that the defendants’ auto skidded into the plaintiffs’ .

Negligence may not be inferred from the mere fact that the auto skidded or that the accident happened. *(Lahr*v. *Tirrill,*274 N. Y. 112.) Nor is the operator of the rear car necessarily negligent if it strikes the car ahead, which stopped without warning. *(Zwilling*v. *Harrison,*269 N. Y. 461.)

There is a triable issue of fact and the motion is denied.

Order signed.
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐289/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Article 11(1)(c) – External emergency plans – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed period an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
SERVED OCTOBER ,5,201 0 ^^^^^^ ^ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : •'''^•'^^QB-i^ATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' ' b OPERATIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

•-} "CI 18 P |: 3b 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TEXAS ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09SO0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA No. FAA-2009-1045 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on January 4 and 5, 2011, in Courtroom #1, United States Bankruptcy Court, 

Western District of Texas, Homer Thornberry Judicial Building, 903 San Jacinto 

Boulevard, Room 322, Austin TX 78701. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and 

conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on or before 

5:00 p.m. each day. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No.; CP09SO0014 

(Civil Penalty A<^on) 

r SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-iSuite 2WlOdO' 

ONE COPY 

Michael C. Crowley, Respondent's Counsel 

Environmental Protection & Administrative 

Law Division 

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, i m 78711 

TEL: 512-475-4202 

FAX: 512-474-1062 

Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel 

Southern Region, ASO-7 

Peder^ Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX; 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

|200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East BuildiAg Ground Floor 

|loomE12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

tEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

.«f; 

,^4' 

: ( " f • 

r*f 

'iV'-r 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

4viation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W 

i>C 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

I^eral 

t Washington,
10/19/2B11 l^Ml 2B23284 . PARKER POLLARD PAGE 82/02 

1^ Parker, PoJhrdWikm&Peadenp.c. 

AadmrpaiLaw 

TiBCZ PAILACON PiACK, SUITE 300 

MEREDITTI L YODER RJCHMOND, VIRGINIA 23Z30-1655 DitiECr DIAL: (604) 261-7309 

&\tAlU myodecOparkerpollard.com (604)262-3600 DmECTFAK.-(604)627-0409 

n-\%i V. pa rk c rpo! I n riJ. com 

October 20,2011 ' S .>• ..-. 

Via US Mail ^ '•'^•^2® 

,—"o: Via Facsimile (202) 366-7536; (202) 493-5123 ';i ^6^ ^ 

Hearing Docket Clerk U •^^"r o 

l-AA, AGC-430, Suite2W1000 —. O^n i 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 4=- ^^ 

Washington, DC 20591 "^ 

Re: Federal Aviation Administration v. Drytac Corporation 

FAA Docket No.: [unassigned] 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0480 

FAA Case No. 2010SO700233 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

The parties have settled this matter. Please accept this letter as Drytac Corporation's 

request to withdraw its request for a hearing and dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to 14 

CFR 13.215. Accordingly, ihc conference call scheduled fox October 26 at 10:00 a.m. may be 

canceled. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely- . 

Meredith L. Yoder 

cc: Judge Jeslyn E. SullivaJi 

Gerald A. Ellis, Esquire
# C_2020215EN.01001701.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal procedure against A.P.

(Case C-2/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA - Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions - Scope - Judgment imposing a suspended custodial sentence - Probation measure - Obligation not to commit a new criminal offence - Obligation prescribed by law)

(2020/C 215/19)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Party to the criminal procedure in the main proceedings

A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment that has imposed a custodial sentence whose execution is suspended subject to the sole condition that a legal obligation not to commit a new criminal offence during a probation period be complied with falls within the scope of that framework decision, provided that that legal obligation results from that judgment or from a probation decision taken on the basis of that judgment, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---