alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010011EN.01000501.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-495/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment)

2010/C 11/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth and H. Walker, Agents, and by J. Maurici, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Requirement to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to make applications for Review of Mineral Planning lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to make applications for Review of Mineral Planning lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated February 10, 1999
into this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and
into the following Registration Statements:

     --  Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8
     --  Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8


[signature]

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

March 26, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Williams, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered August 12, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating that part of the sentence which ordered the defendant to make restitution; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

*299On July 13, 1988, the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of Indictment No. 67843, in exchange for a promised sentence of an indeterminate term of two to four years imprisonment. On August 12, 1988, the promised sentence was imposed, but the defendant was further ordered to make restitution of unrecovered, so-called "buy money” in the amount of $20. It was improper for the court to order the defendant to pay restitution of the buy money *(see, People v Rowe,*152 AD2d 907, *affd*75 NY2d 948; *People v Vigoya,*173 AD2d 582). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
**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, 2005 (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 14, 2005
            
            /s/
                Mark J. AhnMark
                J. AhnPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                November 14, 2005
            
            /s/
                Russell L. SkibstedRussell
                L. SkibstedChief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS

  (Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, State legislatures all across the country 
are passing photo ID laws that could strip millions of Americans of 
their right to vote. Students, communities of color, low-income 
individuals, and seniors are particularly at risk of being 
disenfranchised.
  As just one example, in March this year, a World War II veteran in 
Tennessee was denied the right to vote because he did not have an ID 
that matched his assisted living address. In Minnesota, which is 
considering a misguided constitutional amendment on photo ID, 215,000 
registered voters don't have a driver's license or ID card with a 
current address on it; and if it passes, it will disenfranchise all of 
them.
  Why put these hundreds of thousands of voters at risk? Proponents 
claim fraud, but there's not any fraud. Voter fraud is already illegal, 
and the number of confirmed cases is insignificant statistically. There 
are only a tiny number of cases. For this, we're going to disfranchise 
literally millions of people?

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francis Read, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support the convictions for statutory rape, sodomy and sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a minor. There was medical evidence that the nine-year-old victim’s hymen was not intact, that her vaginal opening was twice that of a prepubertal female, that a parasite transmitted only by sexual activity was present, and that the child suffered a pelvic inflammatory disease found only in females who had been sexually active. That evidence was legally sufficient, when considered with the testimony of the victim, to prove the element of penetration *(see, People v Groff,*71 NY2d 101; *People v Berardicurti,*167 AD2d 840). We further conclude, upon our review of the record, that the jury verdict was not contrary to the weight of credible evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

The remaining issues were not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v West,*56 NY2d 662, 663; *People v Lipton,*54 NY2d 340, 351), and appellate review in the interest of justice is not warranted. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000857264
<NAME> KRUPP GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,749,804
<SECURITIES>                               202,877,219<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,294,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,857,869<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             221,779,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,897,020<F3>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   212,496,510
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,385,602<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               221,779,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,617,796<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,718,561<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,899,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,899,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,899,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes Participating Insured Mortgage Investments ("PIMIs") (insured
mortgages of $108,470,247 and Additional Loans of $19,209,108), Participating
Insured Mortgages ("PIMs") of $48,112,523 and Mortgage-backed Securities
("MBS") of $27,085,341.
<F2>Includes prepaid acquisition fees and expenses of $12,266,450 net of
accumulated amortization of $6,658,224 and prepaid participation servicing fees
of $4,088,713 net of accumulated amortization of $1,839,070.
<F3>Includes deferred income on Additional Loans of $7,871,606.
<F4>Unrealized gain on MBS.
<F5>Represents interest income on investments in mortgages and cash.
<F6>Includes $2,405,645 of amortization of prepaid fees and expenses.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Everett WATKINS, Plaintiff in Error, v. G. A. (Bill) MAULDIN, Defendant in Error.

No. 38233.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 25, 1958.

Wilson Wallace, Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

James D. Payne, Ardmore, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This action was initiated by defendant in error, G. A. Mauldin, to recover judgment on an account. The defendant in the action failed to plead to the petition or appear to contest the claim. Defendant in error, upon affidavit, also caused garnishment summons to be served on the Board of County Commissioners of Carter County, who thereafter filed their answer contesting the garnishment and denying that they held any property belonging to defendant. The allegations of this answer were to the effect that the defendant’s claim against the county had been validly assigned by him to Everett J. Watkins pri- or to the service of the garnishment summons. Issue was joined by the defendant in error on the garnishee’s answer. Prior to the trial of the issues thus made as provided in 12 O.S.1951 § 1177, Everett J. Watkins filed an application to intervene. This application was allowed. His answer alleged the same defense as that pleaded by the Commissioners; that is, that he was the beneficial owner of the claim against the county by assignment from the *963defendant. The action was then tried to the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant in error sustaining the garnishment. The trial court concluded from the evidence that the defendant’s assignment to the intervenor of his claim against the county was null and void for failure of the defendant to have his claim on file with the County Clerk at the time the assignment was executed. See 19 O.S. 1955 Suppl., Sec. 410.10. Intervenor filed no motion for a new trial but has filed here a petition in error with case-made attached.

Defendant in error has reasserted in his brief his previous motion to dismiss. His contention that a motion for new trial was necessary, and the lack thereof fatal to the appeal, is correct. The appeal must be dismissed.

In Cassidy v. Thompson, 84 Okl. 33, 202 P. 291, 292, this precise question, except for the presence of an intervenor, was considered. In that action we said:

> “Where notice that issue will be joined upon an answer in a garnishment proceeding is given and issue is joined and evidence taken, as was done in the instant case, the garnishment proceeding is in such a situation the same as if it were a trial in a civil action. A jury may be impaneled, and to get such proceeding reviewed in this court it is necessary to file a motion for a new trial in the lower court, and give the trial court an opportunity to review any alleged errors.”

> Appeal dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ-, concur.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commission in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by the Commission, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.
Office of Secretary of State
       I, MICHAEL HARKINS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF DEAN WITTER
PRINCIPAL PLUS FUND L.P. FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-
FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, A.D. 1989, AT 18 O'CLOCK A.M.





          Michael Harkins, Secretary of
State AUTHENTICATION:   :





DATE:


82/96/199
8



          CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

DEAN WITTER PRINCIPAL PLUS FUND L.P.
           The undersigned, desiring to form a limited partnership
under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, Title
6 Delaware Code, Subtitle II, Chapter 17, ?17-101 et seq. (the
"Act"), does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 17-201(a) of the
Act, as follows:

1.	Name of Limited Partnership.   The name of the
limited partnership is DEAN WITTER PRINCIPAL PLUS FUND L.P.
           2.	Nature of Business.  The nature of the business to
be conducted by the Partnership is to engage in any lawful act or
activity for which a limited partnership may be organized under
the law of the State of Delaware.
          3.  Registered Office and Agent.  The address of the
Partnership's registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o
The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, in the city of
Wilmington, County of New Castle.  The name and address of the
Partnership's registered agent for service of process in the
State of Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange
Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle.
           4. General Partner. The name and the business and
mailing address of the sole general partner is Demeter Management
Corporation, Two World Trade Center, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York 10048.


        This Certificate was duly executed in accordance with,
and is being filed pursuant to, the provisions of ?17-201 of
the Act and the rights of creditors and partners of the
Partnership are intended to be governed by the Act.
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
of Limited Partnership of Dean Witter Principal Plus Fund
L.P. on August 22nd, 1989.
DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
General Partner


.....



Mark
J
Ha
wl
ey
Pr
es
id
en
t
Exhibit 3.02
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 784 

Expressing support for the designation of Journeymen Linemen Recognition 

Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California (for herself and Mr. MCKINLEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of Journeymen 

Linemen Recognition Day. 

Whereas journeymen linemen provide a vital service on a 

daily basis; 

Whereas journeymen linemen put their lives on the line every 

day to assure safe and reliable power for the American 

people; 

Whereas journeymen linemen work at heights and in close 

proximity to energized electric lines, and in emergencies 

they often work extremely long hours under sometimes 

dangerous conditions to restore power; 

Whereas Henry Miller, the first elected president of the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was 

killed on July 10, 1896, at just 38 years old; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 784 IH 

Whereas Henry Miller died of injuries sustained while troubleshooting an electrical outage; and 

Whereas there should be a day to honor those industry first 

responders who have given their lives in the line of duty 

along with those who provide skillful service in times of 

local or national crisis: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of Journeymen 

3 Linemen Recognition Day; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of 

5 the countless individuals who often place themselves 

6 in harm’s way to serve their communities; and 

7 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

8 to observe Journeymen Linemen Recognition Day 

9 with appropriate reflection. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
October 2, 2015

Mr. Len Davis

Pure Imagination, Inc.

12 East Wilson Street

Batavia, IL 60510

Dear Mr. Davis:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 10, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Pure Imagination Inc., filed 

in Docket No. FAA−2015−2925, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
# C_2020137EN.01004502.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/45

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-648/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/70)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
# C_2008285EN.01002401.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2008 — Data I/O GmbH v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

(Case C-370/08)

(2008/C 285/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Data I/O GmbH

Appellant:

Respondent: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (2), to be so interpreted that it allows an electrical adapter, which is designed to provide the electrical connection between an automatic programming machine and electrical components to be programmed, to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (2), to be so interpreted that it allows an electrical adapter, which is designed to provide the electrical connection between an automatic programming machine and electrical components to be programmed, to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature?

1

2

| 2. | If this question is answered in the negative: is the aforementioned adapter then to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature if it contains a so-called memory-chip, on which the programming process is stored and from which it can be retrieved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If this question is answered in the negative: is the aforementioned adapter then to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature if it contains a so-called memory-chip, on which the programming process is stored and from which it can be retrieved?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.

2

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, James G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:  August 11,  2006 | /s/ JAMES G. STEWART    |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                               | James G. Stewart        |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----