alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021338EN.01000402.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — KA

(Case C-937/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 - Article 1(5)(d) - Article 8 - International carriage of goods by road from one Member State to another Member State - Cabotage operations following that international carriage in the territory of the latter Member State - Restrictions - Requirement of a Community licence and, where appropriate, a carriage authorisation - Exemptions - Cabotage operations following an international carriage on one’s own account - Conditions)

(2021/C 338/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

KA

Interveners: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market must be interpreted as meaning that a haulier who has carried out an international carriage of goods on its own account, for the purposes of Article 1(5)(d) of that regulation, from one Member State to another Member State, is permitted, under Article 8(6) of that regulation, to carry out cabotage operations following that international carriage within the territory of the latter Member State, subject, nevertheless, to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. NUGENT:
        H.R. 6340.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
       To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the 
     several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    ACCEPTANCE OF RELINQUISHMENT OF RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY NEAR PIKE 
                       NATIONAL FOREST, COLORADO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on 
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 4073) to authorize the 
Secretary of Agriculture to accept the quitclaim, disclaimer, and 
relinquishment of a railroad right of way within and adjacent to Pike 
National Forest in El Paso County, Colorado, originally granted to the 
Mt. Manitou Park and Incline Railway Company pursuant to the Act of 
March 3, 1875, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
The spotted lanternfly is 

an invasive insect that 

is putting American 

agriculture and forests 

at risk. Join us. Together, 

we can stop the spread 

of this destructive pest.

Egg mass

Sept.-June

Early nymph 

April-July 

Late nymph

July-Sept.

Adult

July-Dec. 

Before you leave your company lot or work site, 

check for spotted lanternflies on your vehicle’s: 

■ Doors and sides

■ Grill

■ Bumpers

■ Wheel wells

■ Roof

■ Cargo

	 Remember to park away from trees when possible,

and close windows to keep spotted lanternflies out.

Check items stored outside for the pest 

before moving them to a new location: 

■ Propane tanks

■ Outdoor machinery

■ Wooden pallets

■ Shipping containers

When you find an egg mass: 

■ Scrape it into a plastic bag or container that 

contains rubbing alcohol or hand sanitizer. 

When you find a nymph or an adult:

■ Squash it.

Report any spotted lanternflies you see to:

*Get more information at aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/slfbiz 

DRIVER’S CHECKLIST

Life stages of the 

spotted lanternfly

SAVE AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND FORESTS

Your State Department of Agriculture

JOIN THE BATTLE. 

BEAT THE BUG. 
La mosca linterna con 

manchas es un insecto 

invasor que amenaza 

la agricultura y los 

bosques Americanos. 

Únete a nosotros. Juntos 

podemos detener la 

propagación de esta 

plaga destructiva.

 

Masa de huevos 

Sep. – Junio

Ninfa prematura

Abril – Julio

Ninfa tardía

Julio – Sep.

Adulta

Julio – Dic. 

Antes de que salgas del terreno de tu empresa o sitio 

de trabajo, verifica en tu vehículo la presencia de 

moscas linterna con manchas en:

■ Puertas y costados

■ Parrilla

■ Defensas

■ Huecos de las llantas

■ Techo

■ Área de carga

	 Recuerda estacionarte lejos de los árboles cuando sea

posible y cerrar las ventanas para mantener fuera a las

moscas linterna con manchas.

Verifica que los artículos almacenados al aire libre 

no tengan la plaga antes de transportarlos a un 

nuevo lugar:

■ Tanques de propano

■ Maquinaria exterior

■ Tarimas de madera

■ Contenedores

Cuando encuentres una masa de huevos:

■ Ráspala y deposítala dentro de una bolsa de plástico 

o contenedor que contenga alcohol medicinal o

desinfectante de manos.

Cuando encuentres una ninfa o adulta:

■ ¡Aplástala!

Reporta cualquier mosca linterna con manchas a:

 *Para más información visite aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/slfbiz

LISTA DEL CONDUCTOR

Fases vitales de la mosca 

linterna con manchas

¡AYUDA A SALVAR LA AGRICULTURA Y LOS BOSQUES!

El Departamento de Agricultura (USDA) de su Estado

SÚMATE A LA BATALLA.

VENCE AL INSECTO.
Order entered March 14, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00818-CR

CHRISTOPHER JAMES HOLDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-80782-2013

ORDER

This case has been remanded to this Court from the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. Appellant shall file a supplemental brief or written waiver of further 

briefing no later than April 4, 2022, and the State shall file its supplemental brief or 

written waiver of further briefing no later than April 25, 2022. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Application of Marvin LOVE for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12837.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 17, 1960.

*768Hart & Burger, Pauls Valley, for petitioner.

Carroll J. Bowie, County Atty., Garvin County, Pauls Valley, for respondent.

NIX, Judge.

Marvin Love filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had been convicted in the district court of Garvin County, Oklahoma of the crime of manslaughter, and sentenced to serve 35 years in the state penitentiary, and that his appeal bond had been fixed at $25,000. Petitioner alleges that such bond is excessive, and asks that the same be reduced.

Rule to show cause was issued, and at the hearing before this Court the petitioner testified, and also introduced the evidence of other witnesses.

From the evidence before us and adduced at the hearing, it appears that the petitioner is a young man, 22 years of age, a member of a large family, and that he has lived all of his life in the vicinity in which the crime is alleged to have been committed. That he has no previous record of wrong doing. At the hearing before this Court, both the petitioner and his counsel expressed their intention to appeal the judgment and sentence rendered.

The purpose of an appearance bond, or an appeal bond, is to guarantee that the accused will be available at such time as the court may direct and it should never be used for the purpose of punishing an accused. Upon the hearing in this Court and the evidence before us, we were convinced that the bond fixed by the district court of Garvin County was, under all the circumstances, excessive, and that bail in the amount of $12,000 would be a reasonable amount under such facts and circumstances. The Court therefore entered an order granting petitioner bail in the sum of $12,000 pending his appeal to this Court, said bond to be conditioned as provided by law, and to be approved by the Court Clerk of Garvin County, Oklahoma.

In conformity with said order, it is the judgment of this Court that said petitioner is entitled to bail in the reasonable sum of $12,000.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2008260EN.01001101.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 5 August 2008 — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC)

(Case C-358/08)

(2008/C 260/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aventis Pasteur SA

Applicant:

Defendant: OB

Defendant:

Question referred

Is it consistent with the European Product Liability Directive (1) for the laws of a Member State to allow substitution of a new defendant to a claim brought under the Directive after the 10 year period for enforcing rights under Article 11 of the Directive has expired in circumstances where the only person named as a defendant in proceedings instituted during the 10 year period was someone who does not fall within Article 3 of the Directive?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, p. 29).

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     I, J. Randolph Potter, certify that:
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Summit Financial Corporation; 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; Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
   
 Date: March 17, 2004
/s/ J. Randolph PotterJ. Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the A.C.T. Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesG. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to A.C.T. Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by A.C.T.Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 
| Date: May 23, 2005      |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ James G. Stewart    |   |
| James G. Stewart        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKY WEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2011-NM-06005 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0777 

RECEIVED 

MAY 0 7 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c)(l), by agreement of the parties, Complainant requests 

an extension of time to perfect its appeal and states the following in support: 

1. On April22, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard C. Goodwin issued 

an Initial Decision in the above-captioned matter. 

2. On April29, 2015, Complainant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. 

3. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c), Complainant must perfect the appeal not later 

than June 11, 2015, which is 50 days after the entry of ALJ Goodwin's Initial Decision. 

4. Complainant's counsel has conferred with Respondent's counsel and the parties 

have agreed to extend the time period for perfecting the appeal by 30 days. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests the Decisiomnaker grant an extension 

of time until July 10,2015 to perfect the appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 
Dated: May 7, 2015 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-5964 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I served by personal delivery, the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Complainant's Request for an Extension of Time in the matter ofSkyWest, Inc., FDMS NO. 

FAA2012-0777, addressed to: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 00 

Washington, D.C., 20591 

In addition, I hereby certifY that I served a copy of the same by U.S. Certified Mail, 

return receipt requested, addressed to: 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

Sky West Airlines 

444 S. River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

Counsel for Respondent 

Dated: May 7, 2015
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. CLARKE of New York:
       H.R. 6221.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The U.S. Constitution including Article 1, Section 8.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5535-H5536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1210
                 DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE POSTAL SERVICE

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)

[[Page H5536]]

  Mr. KUCINICH. Article I, section 8, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution 
gives Congress the responsibility to establish and ensure operations of 
the postal service. Today, August 1, 2012, 234 years after the 
Constitution was ratified, Congress is presiding over the 
disestablishment of the postal service.
  Today, a manufactured default created by congressional legislation is 
pushing the postal service to the brink. Today, the postal service will 
not make a payment that it should have never had to make in the first 
place to pay for prefunding 75 years of retiree health benefits in 10 
years. A manufactured default, encouraged by banks and other interest 
groups, a move towards privatization of one of America's most vital 
services. The Congress has a responsibility to stand up. But here in 
the USA under Citizens United, everything is up for auction, including 
the postal service.
  Wake up, America. Universal service is on the line. Wake up, America, 
and stand up for the Constitution, the 575,000 postal service workers, 
and our obligation to the American people to see to it that the postal 
service is rescued from those who want to push it into default or 
privatize it for their own profit.

                          ____________________
```
agreement





Exhibit 10(A)(3)

Servotronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries







 




As of May 1, 2004




Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich

1110 Maple Street

Elma, NY 14059




Dear Dr. Trbovich:




You and Servotronics, Inc. (the “Company”) are parties to an employment agreement, as amended and restated on August 8, 1986 and as subsequently amended as of October 1, 1986, October 1, 1987, July 20, 1988, October 1, 1988, October 1, 1989, May 1, 1990, May 1, 1991, May 1, 1992, May 1, 1993, March 28, 1994, May 1, 1994, May 1, 1995, May 1, 1996, May 1, 1997, March 9, 1998, May 1, 1998, October 6, 1998, April 28, 1999, May 1, 1999, May 1, 2000, May 1, 2001 July 3, 2001, May 1, 2002, July 3, 2002, May 1, 2003 and July 3, 2003 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which you are employed by the Company.




This will confirm your agreement and that of the Company (pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors passed at a meeting held on July 2, 2004) to amend Paragraph 3 of the Agreement to delete “$363,995.00” and insert in its place “$382,194.00”.




Except as specifically provided herein, all of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




If the foregoing meets with your approval and you are willing to become bound hereby, will you please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of this letter.




Very truly yours,




SERVOTRONICS, INC.




 







/S/Lee D. Burns

Lee D. Burns,

Treasurer/Secretary







ACCEPTED AND AGREED










/S/ Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich

Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,647,623
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,285,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,933,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          413,334
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,519,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,933,294
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,963
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               79,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   214,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        

</TABLE>
19983

#### Eline v. State

March 25, 1997

Order No. 97-32

Affirmed
# C_2008171EN.01003802.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-119/08 R)

(Application for interim relief - Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus - Application for suspension of operation of the notice - No urgency)

(2008/C 171/72)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and I. Zervas, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of a procurement notice issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus in the field of livestock rearing.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---