alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010024EN.01001401.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-475/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Definitive designation of system operators - Decision exempting major new gas infrastructures from the application of certain provisions of Directive 2003/55/EC - Publication, consultation and notification obligations)

2010/C 24/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent, J. Scalais and O. Vanhulst, avocats)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 7, 11 and 18, in conjunction with Article 25(2), and Article 22(3)(d) and (e) and (4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) — Failure to designate systems operators for the transmission and storage of liquefied natural gas — No requirement to publish the decision exempting new large natural gas facilities from the application of the directive — No requirement to consult the other Member States or regulatory authorities concerned by the interconnection of those facilities.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to designate transmission, storage and liquefied natural gas system operators on a definitive basis as required under Article 7 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, and by failing to transpose Article 22(3)(d) and (e) and (4) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to designate transmission, storage and liquefied natural gas system operators on a definitive basis as required under Article 7 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, and by failing to transpose Article 22(3)(d) and (e) and (4) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian company (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                   |  |                        
|------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 25, 2010 |  |                  
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Judith Downes
|                    |  | Name:             |  | Judith Downes          
|                    |  | Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.5    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 1
  TO 2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN    
    


        This Amendment No. 1 to 2000 Stock Incentive Plan is adopted as of May 30, 2003 with respect to the
2000 Stock Incentive Plan adopted on February 16, 2000 (the "Plan"). 


1. Amendment to Plan.  


        Section 4(c)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows in its entirety: 



	(iii)
	Matching Stock Grants. Each Non-Employee Director receiving a Stock Grant under
Section 4(c)(ii) shall also receive, on the date of each such quarterly Stock Grant, unvested Shares having a value equal to one-quarter (1/4) of the value as
of such date of the fully vested Shares granted under Section 4(c)(ii), the number of such unvested Shares rounded down, if necessary, to the nearest full Share. Each Outside Director, other
than a Non-Employee Director, receiving a Stock Grant under Section 4(c)(ii) shall also receive, on the date of each such quarterly Stock Grant, a number of unvested Shares
pursuant to a Stock Grant having a Fair Market Value on the date of grant equal to one-sixteenth (1/16) of the Outside Director's annual retainer for the full Board Cycle
with respect to which the Stock Grant is granted under Section 4(c)(ii), rounded down to the nearest full Share. 




        Except
as amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force and effect. 


2. Effective Date of Amendment.  


        This Amendment shall become effective as of the date of its adoption. 


3. Choice of Law.  


        The law of the State of California shall govern all questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Amendment, without regard to such
state's conflict of laws rules. 


4. Execution.  


        The Board of Directors of Providian Financial Corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to Section 14(b) of the Plan, has adopted this Amendment as of the date
and year first above written. To evidence the adoption of this Amendment by the Board, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this Amendment on behalf of the Company. 



	 	 	PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By	

/s/  RICHARD LEWEKE      
 Name: Richard Leweke
 Vice Chairman and Chief Human Resources Officer













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.5


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
Annex 5

CHAPTER 1.3.**DISEASES, INFECTIONS AND INFESTATIONSLISTED BY THE OIE**

[...]

Article 1.3.3.

The following are included within the category of sheep and goat diseases and *infections*:

‒	Caprine arthritis/encephalitis

‒	Contagious agalactia

‒	Contagious caprine pleuropneumonia

‒	Infection with *Chlamydia abortus* (Enzootic abortion of ewes, ovine chlamydiosis)

‒	Infection with peste des petits ruminants virus

‒Infection with *Theileria lestoquardi*, *Theileria luwenshuni* and *Theileria uilenbergi*

‒	Maedi–visna

‒	Nairobi sheep disease

‒	Ovine epididymitis *(Brucella ovis)*

‒	Salmonellosis (*S.*abortusovis)

‒	Scrapie

‒	Sheep pox and goat pox.

[...]

**________________________**

*OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2022*1
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3803, 
which unfairly targets the District of Columbia for a prohibition on 
abortions after 20 weeks, with no exception to protect a woman's 
health. This bill is simply another in a long line of attempts by House 
GOP to undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose.
  H.R. 3803 directly contradicts Roe v. Wade by prohibiting pre-
viability abortions and making no exception to protect a woman's 
health. The narrow exception in this bill that allows for an abortion 
when it's necessary to save a woman's life is completely inadequate. 
H.R. 3803 does not include an exception for abortions that would 
prevent severe harm to a woman's health, or for survivors of incest or 
rape.
  Finally, the nature of this legislation derides the democratic 
process by empowering politicians to make health decisions for citizens 
that they do not represent. The singling out of District citizens--who 
have never had the opportunity to elect a voting Member of this body--
is a cynical move that ignores their wishes and undermines the locally 
elected City Council and Mayor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
misguided legislation.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008092EN.01001303.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2008 — BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH v Saarland

(Case C-27/08)

(2008/C 92/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Saarland

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the definition of medicinal product in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) in the version in Directive 2004/27/EC (2) to be interpreted to the effect that a product intended for human consumption and described as a food supplement is a functional medicinal product if it contains substances which pose a risk to health in the low dose contained in the product when the recommended intake printed on the packaging is observed, without being capable of producing therapeutic effects, but have therapeutic effects in high doses?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 311, p. 67.

1

(2)  OJ L 136, p. 34.

2

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4407 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, as the ‘‘Corporal Jeffery 

Allen Williams Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 

Mr. HULTGREN (for himself, Mr. RUSH, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. LIPINSKI, 

Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of 

Illinois, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. 

FOSTER, Mr. BOST, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

KINZINGER, Mrs. BUSTOS, and Mr. LAHOOD) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Jeffery Allen Williams Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CORPORAL JEFFERY ALLEN WILLIAMS POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 3s101 Rockwell Street in 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4407 IH

1 Warrenville, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Corporal Jeffery Allen Williams Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Jeffery Allen 

7 Williams Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 42 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 42

 To authorize the Directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks of 
    the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with 
appropriate civilian accreditation entities or appropriate health care 
evaluation entities to investigate medical centers of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

  Mr. Mullin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks of 
    the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with 
appropriate civilian accreditation entities or appropriate health care 
evaluation entities to investigate medical centers of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF DIRECTORS OF VETERANS INTEGRATED SERVICE 
              NETWORKS TO INVESTIGATE MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--The Director of a Veterans Integrated Service 
Network of the Department of Veterans Affairs may contract with an 
appropriate entity specializing in civilian accreditation or health 
care evaluation to investigate any medical center within such Network 
to assess and report deficiencies of the facilities at such medical 
center.
    (b) Coordination.--Before entering into any contract under 
subsection (a), the Director of a Veterans Integrated Service Network 
shall notify the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Inspector General 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Comptroller General of 
the United States for purposes of coordinating any investigation 
conducted pursuant to such contract with any other investigations or 
accreditations that may be ongoing.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
construed--
            (1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector General of the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs from conducting any review, 
        audit, evaluation, or inspection regarding a topic for which a 
        review is conducted under subsection (a); or
            (2) to modify the requirement that employees of the 
        Department assist with any review, audit, evaluation, or 
        inspection conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of 
        the Department.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008128EN.01002201.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/22

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2008 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-97/08 P)

(2008/C 128/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: Mr C. Swaak, advocaat, Mr M. van der Woude, avocat, Ms M. Mollica, avvocato)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should rule:

| — | that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 be set aside, insofar as it rejected the plea that responsibility was wrongfully attributed — jointly and severally — to Akzo Nobel NV; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 be set aside, insofar as it rejected the plea that responsibility was wrongfully attributed — jointly and severally — to Akzo Nobel NV;

| — | that the Contested Decision be annulled, in as far as it attributed responsibility to Akzo Nobel NV; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Contested Decision be annulled, in as far as it attributed responsibility to Akzo Nobel NV;

| — | that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in as far as they concern the plea raised in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in as far as they concern the plea raised in the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the Court of First Instance has misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), as interpreted by the Court in its case-law on the imputation of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).

1

---
#### WARREN A. NIXON, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF MATAWAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued February 14, 1949

Decided February 21, 1949.

*Mr. John A. Laird*argued the cause for the prosecutor-appellant *(Mr. David RoskeinJ*attorney).

*'Mr. Isidor Kalisch*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent *Messrs. Kalisch & Kalisch,*attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine in the former Supreme Court.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Oliphant, Burling, and Ackerson—5.

*For reversal:*-None.
#### JORDAN v. STATE.

No. A-11737.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 18, 1953.

*296J. E. Jordan, Jr., pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

*.*‘The plaintiff in error, J. E. Jordan, Jr., who will hereinafter be referred to as defendant, seeks a reversal of his conviction in the district court of Oklahoma County, case No. 29397, wherein he was charged by information with the crime of obtaining merchandise by means of a false and bogus check.

This court heretofore permitted to be filed without cost deposit an instrument designated: “Petition in error, 'statement of evidence from memory, and brief”. The attempted appeal must fail.

(1) The defendant acting as his own counsel at trial, though he states that he filed a motion for new trial, the record before us fails to show that he obtained time within which to have casemade prepared or extensions of time, and the instruments were not filed in this court until the last day of the six month period in which the appeal could be perfected. No notice of appeal was given. We fail to find where any of the provisions of 22* O.S.1951 §§ 1055 and 1059, governing the manner of taking an appeal, were complied with.

(2) The appeal is insufficient as an appeal by transcript, 22 O.S.1951 § 1060, because it fails to contain a copy of the records in the case as required to be kept by the court clerk by Section 977 of the same Title; and the record presented is not certified by the clerk. For such reasons, the attempted appeal is subject to dismissal. Davis v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 160, 73 P.2d 489; Long v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 168, 73 P.2d 491.

(3) (3) The basis of complaint is (a) that the evidence did not substantiate a conviction or justify the punishment assessed of a term of seven years; and (b) that the defendant’s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Such being the case, even if the record before us was complete in1 all respects and should meet all the requirements of a transcript, still the errors complained of would require a consideration of the evidence taken at the trial, and such may not be considered where the appeal is by transcript. Sparks v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 283, 115 P.2d 277.

The defendant may have been convicted on hearsay evidence, as to the check stated to have been uttered in Oklahoma County on a bank in California, and charged to have been “bogus” or “hot”, but the' accused apparently chose to' act as his own attorney rather than request the trial court to appoint an attorney to represent him, and we must answer, in the absence of a proper record to the contrary, that our *297conclusion must be that there was sufficient competent evidence to justify conviction and the assessment of the maximum punishment for the crime charged.

There are other errors in the attempted appeal not necessary to enumerate;

The attempted appeal is dismissed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5687-H5688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       HOUSE STANDS READY TO WORK

  (Mr. HARRIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1

[[Page H5688]]

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the Democrat controlled 
Senate voted today to adjourn for over a month, and they haven't even 
voted on a budget for 1,191 days.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a $3.5 trillion enterprise, and the Democrat-
controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Reid, voted to adjourn for 
over a month so that when they come back it will be 1,240 days since 
they haven't voted on a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the House did what it had to do. It voted on a budget. 
It voted to extend the current tax rates to all citizens, and we are 
here ready to work. We ask the Senate to reconsider the decision, Mr. 
Speaker. That's what we ought to do. We ask them to come back in and 
work with us to finally pass a budget.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**

** **

 

I, Joseph D'Agostino, the Chief Financial Officer of Milestone Scientific Inc., certify that:

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Milestone Scientific Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: April 2, 2020

 

/s/ Joseph D'Agostino

Joseph D'Agostino

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)