alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008272EN.01005201.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/52

---

Action brought on 29 August 2008 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission

(Case F-74/08)

(2008/C 272/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Ramaekers-Jørgensen (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

On the one hand, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to calculate the applicant's Community tax by combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor's pension, and of the decision rejecting the application for the Community tax on her survivor's pension not to be deducted in advance, prior to payment of that pension, from her remuneration. On the other, a finding that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 20 May 2008 rejecting the claim brought on 16 January 2008 seeking annulment in part of the decision of 16 October 2007 insofar as that decision laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 20 May 2008 rejecting the claim brought on 16 January 2008 seeking annulment in part of the decision of 16 October 2007 insofar as that decision laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

| — | insofar as necessary, annul in addition, in part, the decision of 16 October 2007 in as much as it laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as necessary, annul in addition, in part, the decision of 16 October 2007 in as much as it laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

| — | by application of Article 241 of the Treaty, find that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful since those provisions stipulate that the survivor's pension awarded to an official is to be added to his pay for the purposes of calculation of the Community tax thereon; |
| --- | --- |

—

by application of Article 241 of the Treaty, find that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful since those provisions stipulate that the survivor's pension awarded to an official is to be added to his pay for the purposes of calculation of the Community tax thereon;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Albert N. Moussab, Chief Financial Officer of Lucille Farms, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
    March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
    or 78o(d)); and

2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 29 2004


                                  By: /s/ Albert N. Moussab
                                  -----------------------------------
                                  Albert N. Moussab, Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Lucille Farms, Inc. and will be retained by Lucille Farms, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:GRA International, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for 

Aviation Consumer Protection
#### City Bank Farmers Trust Co. et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*B. W. Construction Corp. et al., Defendants. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*R. A. Security Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

July 3, 1941.

*594Charles W. Frobssbl, J.

Two motions by plaintiff for summary judgment against the defendant William Levine in two actions to foreclose two mortgages. The opposing affidavits by the attorney for the answering defendant Levine are insufficient to establish the existence of triable issues. Aside from the fact that the affidavit in each case is made by a person having no personal knowledge of the ‘ ‘ facts ’ ’ and competent to testify to same at a trial (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113; *Hallgarlen*v. *Wolhenstein,*204 App. Div. 487, 490), it is conclusory, contains no evidentiary facts, merely repeats the substance of the defenses and urges that they present “ triable issues.” The first defense, to the effect that said defendant Levine was uninformed of the contents of the guarantee, is insufficient. The rule applicable here is: “If the signer is illiterate, or blind, or ignorant of the alien language of the writing, and the contents thereof are misread or misrepresented to him by the other party, or even by a stranger, unless the signer be negligent, the writing is void” *(Pimpinello*v. *Swift & Co.,*253 N. Y. 159, 163 and cases therein cited). This first defense, as presently pleaded, does not claim that said defendant was ‘ ‘ duped ’ ’ into signing the guarantee as was the case in *Pimpinello*v. *Swift & Co. (supra).*The second defense, that by reason of undue and unreasonable delay on the part of the plaintiff to enforce payment the defendant was relieved from liability, is also insufficient *(Howe Mach. Co.*v. *Farrington,*82 N. Y. 121, 131; *Douglass*v. *Ferris,*138 N. Y. 192, 206; *Capek*v. *Demetrowitz,*253 App. Div. 917). The third defense, that the value of the property exceeds the mortgage, with interest, taxes and costs, is also insufficient. The question of value may be contested when and if proceedings under section 1083 of the Civil Practice Act are had subsequent to the sale of the premises herein. In view of the fact that no triable issues are presented, both motions must be granted.
Exhibit
      32





**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Reed’s Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
      for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, Christopher J. Reed, Chief
      Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted 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)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and2.
            The
                information contained intheReportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                and
                results of operations of Reeds, Inc.














/s/
      Christopher J. Reed


Christopher
      J. Reed


Chief
      Executive Officer, President


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer




August
      17, 2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Reed’s, Inc. and will be retained by Reed’s, Inc. and furnished to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 13.2

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company
Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Han Zhihao, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of
the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Date: August 20, 2008



By:

/s/ Han ZhihaoName:

Han ZhihaoTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009044EN.01004001.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/40

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 December 2008 — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG

(Case C-585/08)

(2009/C 44/68)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Peter Pammer

Appellant:

Respondent: Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a ‘voyage by freighter’ constitute package travel for the purposes of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a ‘voyage by freighter’ constitute package travel for the purposes of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is the fact that an agent's website can be consulted on the internet sufficient to justify a finding that activities are being ‘directed’ within the terms of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is the fact that an agent's website can be consulted on the internet sufficient to justify a finding that activities are being ‘directed’ within the terms of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
[Cite as Mentor v. Blueline Servs., L.L.C. , 2024

- Ohio

- 2955.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY

CITY OF MENTOR,

Appellee,

- vs

-

BLUELINE SERVICES, LLC,

Appellant. CASE NO. 2024

- L

- 042

Criminal Appeal from the Mentor Municipal Court

Trial Court No. N/A

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

Decided: August 5, 2024 Judgment: Appeal Dismissed

Joseph P. Szeman , City of Mentor Director of Law, 8500 Civic Center Boulevard, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Appellee).

Kimberly Kendall Corral and Gabrielle M. Ploplis , 3311 Perkins Avenue, Suite 205, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.

{¶1} On June 17, 2024, appellant, Blueline Services, LLC, through counsel, filed

a notice of appeal from a May 15, 2024 entry

.

{¶2} App.R. 3(A) expressly states that the only jurisdictional requirement for filing

a valid appeal is to file it within the time allowed by App.R. 4. The Supreme Court has

held that the failure to comply with the time requirements of App.R. 4(A) is a jurisdictional

defect, which is fatal to an appeal. In re H.F. , 2008

- Ohio

- 6810, ¶ 17, citing State ex rel.

Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections , 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988).2

Case No. 2024

- L

- 042 {¶3} Here, a timely appeal from the May 15, 2024 entry was due no later than

June 14, 2024, which was not a court holiday or weekend. Thus, the appeal was untimely

filed by three days.

{¶4} Appellant has not complied with the thirty

- day rule set forth in App.R.

4(A)(1). Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to consider its appeal.

{¶5} This appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

,

concur

.
# Grantee Resource - Appalachian Regional Commission

- ARC Budget Revision Worksheet, Construction This worksheet must be filled out to request revisions to current ARC grants for construction projects.The post ARC Budget Revision Worksheet, Construction appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Guide to ARC Project Performance Measures This page will guide you through the process of developing performance measures for your proposed activity.The post Guide to ARC Project Performance Measures appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Grant Reporting Overview This video overview gives guidance to grantees on how to navigate ARC’s reporting tools on ARCnet, ARC’s current Grants Management System. Reports are used to communicate project activity, progress, and budgetary needs and spending for ARC funded projects, and are required for grants to remain active, to stay in compliance with federal regulations, and to [&#8230;]The post Grant Reporting Overview appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Amendments Guide for Construction Project Grantees This document provides basic guidance on what to do when there are changes to the scope, budget, or timeline of an ARC-funded construction project.The post Amendments Guide for Construction Project Grantees appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Access to Capital Projects Application and Operating Guidelines These guidelines provide Access to Capital (ATC) grantees with specific guidance abouteligibility in applying; eligibility of borrowers; eligible and ineligible uses of grant funds;conflicts of interest; application requirements; post-award management and monitoring;audits; and consequences of non-compliance.The post Access to Capital Projects Application and Operating Guidelines appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Interim Report Narrative Outline This outline provides a suggested format for the interim narrative report if you email reports to ARC. The post Interim Report Narrative Outline appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Final Report Narrative Outline This outline provides a suggested format for the final narrative report. The post Final Report Narrative Outline appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Grant Administration Manual for ARC Non-Construction Grants This manual provides guidance on post-award administration of ARC non-construction projects from approval to closeout. The post Grant Administration Manual for ARC Non-Construction Grants appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- ARC Project Guidelines The guidelines set forth the criteria for approval of ARC projects reflecting the requirements of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (ARDA), as amended, the ARC Code, and the provisions of the ARC Strategic Plan. The post ARC Project Guidelines appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- ARC Budget Revision Worksheet, Non-Construction This worksheet must be filled out to request budget revisions to current ARC grants. The post ARC Budget Revision Worksheet, Non-Construction appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4443 

To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to Urban Indian 

organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. 

RUIZ, Mr. COLE, Mrs. TORRES, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. 

DELBENE, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. 

MOORE, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. MATSUI) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage 

to Urban Indian organizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Indian Health 

5 Parity Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4443 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSIST2 ANCE PERCENTAGE TO URBAN INDIAN ORGA3 NIZATIONS. 

4 Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1396d(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘Indian Health Care 

6 Improvement Act)’’ and inserting ‘‘Indian Health Care 

7 Improvement Act) or through an Urban Indian organiza8 tion (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 

9 Improvement Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with 

10 the Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian 

11 Health Care Improvement Act’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
#### Constance Clarke et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Sharp Trading Corporation, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Nassau County,

November 4, 1959.

*Milton Boxer*for plaintiffs.

*Bernard Helfenstein*for defendant.

*556Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for a preference is *denied.*

The cause of action arises out of the plaintiff’s fall caused by tripping over a defective carpet runner in a hotel.

The plaintiff, a woman 40 years of age, was- suffering from a heart condition prior to the fall. The physician’s affidavit says that this “ previous heart abnormality was aggravated by the fall ”; and also that she *“*may not * * * be alive in the event that this case should proceed to trial at a later date ”. Thus he does not say affirmatively that the plaintiff is in imminent danger of death in the near future. It has been held that *‘ ‘*There must be * * * an unreserved and unequivocal affidavit by a physician and * * * the opinion of the physician must be supported by credible medical facts ”. *(Dodumoff*v. *Lyons,*4 A D 2d 626, 627 [1st Dept.].) And further, *“*There is no persuasive showing of * * * probability of death before trial in the regular order; and the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion”. *[O’Callaghan*v. *Brawley,*276 App. Div. 908 [2d Dept.].)

Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to establish facts entitling her to a preference.

Motion *denied.*
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
H. R. 4407 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3s101 

Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, as the ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Allen Williams 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JEFFREY ALLEN WILLIAMS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Allen Williams Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Jeffrey Allen Williams Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# C_2009205EN.01003602.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark oli - Earlier Community word marks OLAY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009])

2009/C 205/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: T. Scourfield, N. Beckett, Solicitors and A. Speck, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Alcala Farma SL (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 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 endedDecember 31, 2007 (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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 21, 2008