alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020399EN.01001401.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Bena Properties Co. SA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-260/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant's name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bena Properties Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bena Properties Co. SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bena Properties Co. SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Patrick M. Murray, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Dresser, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and



3. 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.



|Date: December 11, 2003 |  | /s/ Patrick M. Murray  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Patrick M. Murray      
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4495 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny as a trade or business 

expense deduction amounts paid or incurred in connection with the 

settlement of a sexual harassment or sexual assault claim. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 

Mr. BUCK (for himself, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. 

TAYLOR, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. BRAT, Mr. 

MEADOWS, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny as 

a trade or business expense deduction amounts paid or 

incurred in connection with the settlement of a sexual 

harassment or sexual assault claim. 

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 ‘‘Settlement Tax Deduc5 tions are Over for Predators Act’’ or the ‘‘STOP Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4495 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

2 SETTLEMENTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162(f) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘AND PENALTIES’’ and all that 

5 follows through ‘‘under subsection (a) for any fine’’ 

6 and inserting the following: ‘‘, PENALTIES, AND

7 OTHER AMOUNTS.—No deduction shall be allowed 

8 under subsection (a) for any of the following: 

9 ‘‘(1) Any fine’’, and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(2) Any amount paid or incurred on account 

13 of a judgment or settlement (whether by suit or 

14 agreement and whether as lump sum or periodic 

15 payments) originating from, or to require the non16 disclosure of or otherwise prevent, a claim or accusa17 tion of— 

18 ‘‘(A) that which would constitute an of19 fense under chapter 109A of title 18, United 

20 States Code, or 

21 ‘‘(B) sexual harassment (including unwel22 come sexual advances, requests for sexual fa23 vors, or other verbal or physical harassment of 

24 a sexual nature). 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4495 IH

1 The preceding sentence shall include any amount 

2 paid or incurred in connection with negotiating or 

3 settling an amount described therein.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 11, 2004, except for Note 10 which is dated
March 14, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Landrys Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 into the following:



|I. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-75886) relating to the Companys shelf registration statement.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|II. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-104175) relating to the Companys 2002 Employee/Rainforest Conversion Plan and the Companys 2002 and 2001
Employee Agreements.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|III. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-93173) relating to the Companys Amended and Restated 1995 Flexible Incentive Plan.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|IV. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-02862) relating to the Companys Stock Option Plan.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|V. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-02854) relating to the 1995 Flexible Spending Plan.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|VI. | The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 033-81007) relating to the 1993 Stock Option Plan.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



VII. The Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 033-76500) relating to the
1993 Stock Option Plan and Nonqualified Formula Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors.



ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Houston, Texas

March 14, 2006
#### John Unger, Respondent, v Village of Fayetteville, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On October 3, 1982, plaintiff was *607injured when he was struck by an automobile as he walked on Highbridge Street, a county road in the Village of Fayetteville. Plaintiff brought suit against the Village, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, and the driver and owner of the vehicle, alleging that, at the site of the accident, he was forced to walk in the roadway because the sidewalk terminated and the shoulder of the road was uneven. He also alleged that the streetlight in the vicinity of the accident, designated Niagara Mohawk pole # 17, was not functioning.

Defendant Village moved for dismissal of the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no duty to maintain Highbridge Street and that plaintiff had failed to plead that the Village had received prior written notice of the alleged defects in the road. The motion was denied, and we affirm.

Village Law § 6-628 requires written notice of "actual physical defects in the surface” of a street *(Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook,*18 NY2d 362, 366). The statute does not apply to a burned-out streetlight. Additionally, plaintiff has alleged, and defendant does not dispute, that the Village undertook to provide streetlights on Highbridge Street in the vicinity of the accident. Maintenance of existing streetlights is a proprietary function of the municipality *(see, Oeters v City of New York,*270 NY 364; *Kamnitzer v City of New York,*265 App Div 636) and, on these facts, application of the "special duty” doctrine *(see, Kircher v City of Jamestown,*74 NY2d 251; *Cuffy v City of New York,*69 NY2d 255) is unwarranted *(see, Thompson v City of New York,*164 AD2d 773). Plaintiff’s unchallenged allegation that defendant failed to maintain its previously installed streetlight in proper working order is sufficient to state a cause of action against the Village. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
# C_2008313EN.01006001.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/60

---

Action brought on 15 October 2008 — Notarnicola v Court of Auditors

(Case F-85/08)

(2008/C 313/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Notarnicola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the defendant informing the applicant of his dismissal and reinstatement of the applicant and, in the alternative, an order that the defendant pay a sum as compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 16 July 2008 and, accordingly, annul the decision of 5 March 2008 informing the applicant of his dismissal with effect from 15 April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 July 2008 and, accordingly, annul the decision of 5 March 2008 informing the applicant of his dismissal with effect from 15 April 2008;

| — | Reinstate the applicant as a member of the contractual staff pursuant to the contract of 23 August 2007, with retroactive payment of salary from 16 April 2008 until the date of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reinstate the applicant as a member of the contractual staff pursuant to the contract of 23 August 2007, with retroactive payment of salary from 16 April 2008 until the date of judgment;

| — | In the alternative, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 60 500 for material loss and EUR 5 000 for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 60 500 for material loss and EUR 5 000 for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant.

---
# C_2021044EN.01004001.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta — Spain) — ED v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-523/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
# C_2008158EN.01001801.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Interim measures) of 30 April 2008 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-65/08 R)

(Interim proceedings - Control of concentrations - Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Conditions imposed by the Spanish authorities on parties to a concentration declared incompatible with the common market - Application for stay of execution - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Balance of interests)

Prima facie

(2008/C 158/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2007) 5913 Final of 5 December 2007 (Case No COMP/M.4685 — Enel/Acciona/Endesa) in relation to a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 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 E Com Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending August 4, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donovan Chin, 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, to my knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ Donovan ChinDonovan ChinChief Financial OfficerSeptember 17, 2007
IB 

Union Calendar No. 496 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4464 

[Report No. 115–647] 

To repeal the rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration titled 

‘‘Risk-Based Capital’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2017 

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

APRIL 24, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4464 RH

A BILL 

To repeal the rule issued by the National Credit Union 

Administration titled ‘‘Risk-Based Capital’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4464 RH

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 ‘‘Common Sense Credit 

5 Union Capital Relief Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 The rule issued by the National Credit Union Admin8 istration titled ‘‘Risk-Based Capital’’ (published at 80 

9 Fed. Reg. 66626 (October 29, 2015)) shall have no force 

10 or effect, and any regulation revised by that rule shall be 

11 applied as if that rule had not been issued. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 496 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4464 

[Report No. 115–647] 

A BILL 

To repeal the rule issued by the National Credit 

Union Administration titled ‘‘Risk-Based Capital’’. 

APRIL 24, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 11874 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:15

- cr - 00065

- MMH

- JBT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus EDIK ASADORIAN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 26, 2017) Before TJOFLAT , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Robert Godfrey , appointed counsel for Edik Asadorian in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

Case: 16-11874 Date Filed: 05/26/2017 Page: 1 of 22 filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , an d Asadorian ’s conviction s and sentence s are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 16-11874 Date Filed: 05/26/2017 Page: 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
  /S/ R. H. DillonPrint Name:
    R. H. DillonTitle:
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    February 25, 2011 /S/ James F. LairdPrint Name:
    James F. LairdTitle:
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    February 25, 2011
# C_2010100EN.01003802.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Doktor v Council

(Case T-248/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary period - Continuation of probationary period - Report at the end of the probationary period - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Distortion of facts and evidence - Obligation on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

2010/C 100/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: František Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07 Doktor v Council, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking, first, annulment of that judgment and, second, damages

Doktor

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr František Doktor and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs incurred in connection with the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr František Doktor and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs incurred in connection with the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
#### Benee C. Dixon, as Administratrix of the Estate of Minnie Dixon, Deceased, Respondent, v Henry Freuman et al., Respondents, and Caledonian Hospital, Appellant.

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Caledonian Hospital appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated February 8, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs to the appellant payable by the plaintiff-respondent, the motion is granted, the plaintiff’s complaint and the codefendants’ cross claims are dismissed insofar as they are against the defendant Caledonian Hospital, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff’s decedent commenced an action in order to recover compensation for the injuries she allegedly suffered as the result of a vesico-vaginal fistula. The defendant Caledonian Hospital, in its motion for summary judgment, adduced proof in admissible form sufficient to establish, among other things, that its staff in no way contributed to the occurrence of the fistula itself. The hospital’s submissions also established that during the decedent’s recovery from surgery, the codefendant Dr. Henry Freuman, one of the decedent’s personal physicians, ordered that the use of a Foley catheter be discontinued. In the absence of proof that Dr. Freuman’s order to discontinue the catheter was "clearly contraindicated by normal practice” *(Sledziewski v Cioffi,*137 AD2d 186, 190), the hospital may not now be held liable on the theory that the *911catheter should have been continued in order to allow constant monitoring of the decedent’s "input and output” *(see, Sledziewski v Cioffi, supra; see also, Toth v Community Hosp.,*22 NY2d 255).

There is, furthermore, no suggestion in the record as to how input and output could be monitored in the absence of a catheter. There is also no specific explanation as to how a closer monitoring of input and output would have led to an earlier discovery of the fistula, or as to how an earlier discovery of the fistula would have lessened the decedent’s injuries. The assertions made by the plaintiff’s expert in connection with these issues are wholly conclusory and thus devoid of evidentiary value *(see, e.g., Canosa v Abadir,*165 AD2d 823; *see also, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851). Under these circumstances, we conclude that summary judgment should have been granted to the hospital. Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2009282EN.01004501.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/45

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle)

(Case T-191/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 282/85

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 1822/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---