alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008272EN.01001402.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/14

---

Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-397/08)

(2008/C 272/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Telles Romão, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC and, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC and, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 10 September 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01001802.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/18

---

Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-354/08)

(2008/C 285/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by providing for priority to the outgoing licensee in the course of putting out to competitive tender licences in respect of works using hydraulic energy, in particular by adopting the provisions of Article 29(3) of decree No 99/225 of 22 March 1999 relating to the licence and the declaration of public use of works using hydraulic energy, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by providing for priority to the outgoing licensee in the course of putting out to competitive tender licences in respect of works using hydraulic energy, in particular by adopting the provisions of Article 29(3) of decree No 99/225 of 22 March 1999 relating to the licence and the declaration of public use of works using hydraulic energy, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that granting priority to the outgoing licensee, upon renewal and granting of licences in respect of works using hydraulic energy, infringes the principle of non-discrimination and hinders freedom of establishment. By favouring companies which have a licence and which are therefore established in France, French legislation makes the establishment of companies set up in other Member States more difficult.

Moreover, the French authorities did not rely on the derogations provided for in Articles 45 and 46 of the Treaty or overriding reasons in the public interest in order to justify the measure in question which was, in any event, disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued. Accordingly, financial charges borne by the outgoing licensee may, for example, be offset by other obligations imposed on all new competitors.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                PROGRAM

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, we will continue to debate the 
cybersecurity bill tomorrow. Senators will be notified when votes are 
scheduled.

                          ____________________
```
y



### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 12

- 00175

- CV

KIMBER L Y [KIMBLEY] HAROLD , Appellant

V.

MATTHEW M. CARRICK, CAROLYN M. BERG, DOA N NGUYEN, AND DAVID

CHAFEY , Appellee s

Appeal from the 113th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009

- 65980 ).

TO THE 113TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 10 th day of September 2013 , the case upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

the trial court on January 20, 2012. After submitting the case

on the appellate record and the arguments properly ra ised by

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Kimber l y

[Kimbley] Harold, pay all appellate costs.The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered September 10 , 2013.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and

Brown. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

December 3 1 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
# Carroll - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association Executive Director Dr. Vicki King-Maple Email &#x76;&#109;a&#x70;&#x6c;&#101;&#64;&#x6f;&#x6d;&#101;g&#x61;&#100;i&#x73;&#x74;&#114;i&#x63;&#x74;&#46;o&#x72;&#103;The post Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1412-E1413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        IRAN THREAT REDUCTION AND SYRIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amended version of 
H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction & Syria Human Rights Act.

[[Page E1413]]

  I am a co-sponsor of and voted for the original version of this bill 
when it was on the House floor in December 2011. Since that time, the 
bill has been refined in the Senate with language designed to 
essentially paralyze Iran's oil sector, which has already seen its oil 
exports fall by 60 percent as a result of sanctions imposed to date. 
The improved bill before us even more broadly targets Iran's oil sector 
and anyone who tries to do business with Iran in this area. It will 
prevent the Central Bank of Iran from repatriating funds from the sale 
of oil as part of bilateral trade agreements Iran may have with other 
nations. Indeed, prior sanctions passed by this Congress have caused 
India and Turkey to deny Iranian banks licenses to set up branches in 
those nations. Finally, this bill includes sanctions targeting Syrian 
officials responsible for the massacres in that nation since the Syrian 
people began their uprising more than 18 months ago.
  These are important steps we must take as part of a strategy to use 
every means available to compel Iran to meet its international 
obligations. Iran must renounce any effort to acquire nuclear weapons, 
and that claim must be verified through thorough, intrusive on-site 
inspections and monitoring.
  I should also note that yesterday, President Obama announced a fresh 
set of sanctions against Iran's energy and petrochemical sectors based 
on existing sanctions law and his own authority as president. As 
President Obama noted this week, ``The United States remains committed 
to a diplomatic solution, but the onus is on Iran to abide by its 
international obligations. If the Iranian government continues its 
defiance, there should be no doubt that the United States and our 
partners will continue to impose increasing consequences.'' The 
government of Iran should understand that Congress, on a bipartisan 
basis, is sending the same message by passing H.R. 1905. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Voyager One, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Sebastien DuFort,
President and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                               By /s/ John Lichter
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer
                                  Date: 8/15/05

                               By /s/ Sebastien DuFort
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Sebastien DuFort, President and Acting Chief
                                  Financial Officer
                                  Date: 8/15/05
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE INCOME STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          22,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    214,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,300
<PP&E>                                         242,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,163,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          436,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                   (308,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,163,500
<SALES>                                      1,716,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,716,600
<CGS>                                        1,240,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,240,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               386,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.82)
        

</TABLE>
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-346-CR

LONNEY ROBERTO ANTONIO BROWN APPELLANT

A/K/A LONNEY R. BROWN

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

After pleading true to having violated the terms and conditions of his

deferred adjudication community supervision, appellant Lonney Roberto

Antonio Brown a/k/a Lonney R. Brown appeals his conviction and ten-yearand-one-day sentence for burglary of a habitation. We affirm.
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3... See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.).

4... See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351

(1988).

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief,

counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds for relief. We gave appellant the opportunity to file

a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to

withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the

requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent

examination of the record.3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.4

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find
5... See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006).

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.5 Accordingly,

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 28, 2009
#### Stanley Zlotnick, Plaintiff, *v.*Robert C. Campbell, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Nassau County,

October 29, 1959.

*814
      *Max Beit*for plaintiff.

*Martin A. Crean*for defendant.

Mario Pittohi, J.

The plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the defendant’s attorney to immediately forward a copy of the medical report of the physical examination of the injured plaintiff made by a doctor of the defendant’s choice on January 13, 1959 is granted. A copy of the report shall be sent to the plaintiff’s attorney within 10 days after the date of the order herein. This order is unconditional. The defendant’s request that the order be conditioned on the plaintiff’s delivery to the defendant of a copy of the medical report of the plaintiff’s physical examination made by his own physician is denied. *(Baum*v. *Nussenbaum,*7 A D 2d 991 [2d Dept.]; *Mansoor*v. *Simon,*5 A D 2d 845 [2d Dept.]; *O’Keefe*v. *Mow,*19 Misc 2d 378.)

In this case the plaintiff voluntarily submitted to a physical examination by the defendant’s physician, and submitted to an adversary examination analogous to any other adversary examination, oral or otherwise. This differs from an examination by his own physician where he is making a disclosure to one of his own choosing in preparation for trial. This self-examination or preparation for trial is analogous to any other examination by his own attorney, or on behalf of his attorney. The courts of this State have not yet reached the conclusion that each party must make available or must disclose its preparation files to the adversary.

The argument that full prior disclosure as to injuries will hasten settlements and develop greater justice during trials can be applied to most prior disclosures of evidence and facts before trial. Again, however, the courts of this State have not yet reached the point of opening litigants’ files to adversaries.

This is not to say that the surrender of a copy of the plaintiff’s medical report to the defendant should never be a condition for the delivery to him of a physical examination report made for the defendant. There are occasions when such a condition is desirable. However, this is to say that the courts should hesitate to impose as a condition for the delivery to the plaintiff of a copy of his physical examination report by the defendant the requirement that the plaintiff disclose what is in effect his own trial preparation.

Mr. Justice Shapiro, in *O’Keefe*v. *Mow (supra,*p. 381) rendered a scholarly and exhaustive opinion on this matter. Therein he analyzed the *Baum*and *Mansoor*decisions decided *815by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, and he concluded as follows:

“ that the same be not conditioned on the plaintiff famishing to the defendant the reports of his own physicians.

‘1 The court is constrained to make the above determination as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion. ’ ’

The plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Submit order.
# C_2021320EN.01000902.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/9

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Fluctus s.r.o., Fluentum s.r.o., KI v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

(Case C-920/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Gambling - Dual system of organisation of the market - Monopoly on lottery products and casino games - Prior authorisation for the use of automatic gaming machines - Advertising practices of the monopolist - Criteria for assessment - Constitutional case-law finding the national legislation to be compatible with EU law)

(2021/C 320/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fluctus s.r.o., Fluentum s.r.o., KI

Respondent: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

Other party: Finanzpolizei Team 96

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance on the sole ground that the advertising practices of the holder of the monopoly on lottery products and casino games aim at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by trivialising gambling, by conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance on the sole ground that the advertising practices of the holder of the monopoly on lottery products and casino games aim at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by trivialising gambling, by conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings.

| 2. | The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court of a Member State to disapply a provision of national law which is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, including where a higher court of that Member State has held that that provision was consistent with EU law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court of a Member State to disapply a provision of national law which is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, including where a higher court of that Member State has held that that provision was consistent with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---