alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010024EN.01005301.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/53

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-313/08 to T-318/98 and T-320/08 to T-328/08) (1)

1

(Application for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery of bluefin tuna stock - Fixing the TAC for 2008 - Measure of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 24/94

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc (Catania, Italy) and the sixteen other applicants of which the names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The actions are dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants, Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc and the sixteen other applicants of which the names appear in the annex, shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants, Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc and the sixteen other applicants of which the names appear in the annex, shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Bryant, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered May 1, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court in this case charged the jury on six counts arising out of a single incident. These were "non-inclusory” concurrent counts *(see,*CPL 300.30 [4]). The court further instructed the jury to consider the counts in sequential order and to consider each count only after reaching a verdict of not guilty on the previous one.

The defendant argues that although these instructions would be proper in cases involving lesser included offenses *(see, People v Boettcher,*69 NY2d 174), in this case, the court should have further instructed the jury that it could consider the counts in any order. However, we find that the court *could*have submitted only one "non-inclusory” concurrent count to the jury *(see,*CPL 300.40 [3] [a]). Therefore, the defendant cannot now claim that the court erred by submitting the counts in a specific order.

We further find that although the instructions given by the court may not be mandatory in a case involving "non-inclusory concurrent counts” (CPL 300.40 [3] [a]; *see, People v York,*133 AD2d 130), the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in instructing the jury to consider the counts in the alternative and in not instructing it that if it was unable to agree on a count, it could go on to the next one *(see, e.g., People v Brensic,*119 AD2d 281, *revd on other grounds*70 NY2d 9).

Finally, contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the trial court did not improperly delegate a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member at a critical stage of the proceedings. After the jury sent a note to the court indicating that it completed deliberations on the first count, the court had a court officer inquire as to the meaning of the note. The jury *170then told the court officer that it had reached a verdict. Inasmuch as the court had previously instructed the jury to cease deliberations when it reached a verdict of guilty on the first count, it is clear that it was merely inquiring whether the jury had reached a verdict and thus this procedure was not tantamount to an unconstitutional delegation of supervisory authority *(see, People v Morman,*137 AD2d 838; *cf., People v Torres,*72 NY2d 1007; *People v Payne,*149 AD2d 542). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Webb Mortgage Depot, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the
Corporation certifies that 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 operation of the
Corporation.

  /s/ Byron Webb
-------------------------------
Byron Webb
President, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Accounting Officer
August 12, 2005
# C_2009019EN.01001201.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2008 — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin

(Case C-462/08)

(2009/C 19/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ümit Bekleyen

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of the Association to be interpreted as meaning that the right of access to the labour market and the corresponding right of residence following the completion of a vocational training course in the host Member State can also be invoked in a situation in which the child who was born in the host Member State, but afterwards returned with her family to the family's country of origin, returns on her own to the relevant Member State after she has reached the age of majority in order to start a vocational training course, at a moment occurring 10 years after her parents, Turkish nationals who used to be employed in that Member State, had permanently left that Member State?

---
EXHIBIT 4.0

NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

48 N. South Street

Wilmington, OH 45177

March 18, 2008

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: NB&T Financial Group, Inc.  Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen:

NB&T Financial Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation
(NBTF), is today filing an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K), as executed on March 18, 2008.

Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, NBTF hereby agrees to furnish the Commission, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights
of holders of its long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K. Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of NBTF and its subsidiaries on a
consolidated basis.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                
|                                 
|/s/ John J. Limbert              
|John J. Limbert President and
CEO



66
### Aircraft Inquiries
N-number Serial Number Name Make / Model Engine Reference Dealer Document Index State and County Territory and Country Pending / Expired / Canceled Registration Reports Recent Registration N-number Availability Request A Reserved N-Number Online In WritingReserved NNumber Renewal Online Request for Aircraft Records Online Help Main Menu Aircraft Registration Aircraft Downloadable Database Definitions N-Number Format Registrations at Risk Contact Aircraft Registration Name: Sorted By: FAA Home Licenses & Certificates Aircraft Certification Aircraft Registration Aircraft Inquiry Name Inquiry 

### Notice: This application may experience intermittent network issues today until 6:00 PM CT due to scheduled maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.This application may experience intermittent network issues today until 6:00 PM CT due to scheduled maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.


## FAA REGISTRY Name Inquiry Results

DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS N-Number Data Updated each Federal Working Day at Midnight

Showing 1 - 12 of 12 (Page 1 of 1)

N-Number Serial Number Manufacturer Name Model Name Address 4060H 25-0459 MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20K DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS INC

450DN DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

450DN 0002B MARK SMITH 450 FLAMEWHEEL DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

451DN 6751A HORIZON HOBBY INC CHROMA CAMERA DRONE DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

451DN DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

452DN DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

452DN 6101A DJI INSPIRE 1 DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

453DN DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

453DN 0006A MARK SMITH 550 FLAMEWHEEL DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

454DN 0900A MARK SMITH SPREADING WINGS 900 DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

454DN DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

556GC 0001A DJI FLAMEWHEEL F450 DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS

Showing 1 - 12 of 12 (Page 1 of 1)

Data Updated each Federal Working Day at Midnight » » » » »
# C_2008301EN.01002602.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/26

---

Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-422/08)

(2008/C 301/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and B. Schöfer, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

1

| — | Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 30 April 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY EDWARD COLEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CR-97-39)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

E. Gay Leonard, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Randall Ramseyer, Assistant

United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Edward Coleman appeals from his conviction for conspiracy

to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) & 846 (1994). Coleman’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

in her view there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Despite

notice from the court, Coleman has not filed a supplemental pro se

brief. The issues raised by Coleman’s counsel are without merit.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment.

Coleman assigns error to the district court’s order denying

his motion for a new trial on the grounds that one of the Government’s key witnesses, Barry English, had a prior perjury conviction

unknown by the two parties until after Coleman’s conviction and

before sentencing. We review a district court’s denial of a motion

for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1486 (4th Cir. 1985). We affirm the conviction and district court’s order denying the motion for a new

trial on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Coleman, CR-97-39 (W.D. Va. Jul. 2, 1998).

This court requires that counsel inform her client, in

writing, of the client’s right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
3

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased June 2, 2023 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### A

- 22

- 547 Andrade v. Johnson

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
#### In the Matter of Joann Pisacane, Appellant, v Lloyd King, Jr., et al., Respondents, and Peter A. Chema et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Peter A. Chema, Richard B. Liebowitz and Redentore A. Ferrari as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidates for the public offices of Mayor, City Judge and City Council President of the City of Yonkers, respectively, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated August 14, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the omission of the term "I do hereby appoint” from that portion of the designating petition relating to the committee to fill vacancies did not render the petition invalid. Although Election Law § 6-132 does not permit deviations from the statutorily prescribed content of designating petitions, it does permit "substantial compliance” with the statutorily prescribed format for such petitions *(see, Matter of Alamo v Black,*51 NY2d 716, 717; *Matter of Clarkin v Power,*26 Misc 2d 58, *affd*10 AD2d 998, *affd 8*NY2d 876). Upon reviewing the designating petition, we find that there was substantial compliance.

The record also indicates that the respondents-respondents’ designating petition contained a sufficient number of valid *895signatures. Bracken, J. P., Keeper, Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
# C_2018399EN.01003702.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/37

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — XG v Commission

(Case T-504/18 R)

((Interim measures - Refusal to grant access to the Commission’s premises - Application for interim measures - No interest in obtaining the interim measures sought))

(2018/C 399/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XG (represented by: S. Kaisergruber and A. Burghelle-Vernet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision of 2 July 2018 confirming its refusal to allow access to its premises and, secondly, an order that the Commission provisionally grant access to its premises.

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.

---
# C_2010179EN.01000802.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission

(Case C-583/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Internal competition for promotion from one category to another - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Length of proceedings before the General Court - Reasonable time - Claim for equitable compensation)

(2010/C 179/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Christos Gogos (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by P.I. Anestis, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-66/04 Gogos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to place the applicant in Grade A 7 when he was appointed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

---
# Cambria - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Startup Alleghenies: Empowering the Cycle of Entrepreneurship Since&#160;1974,&#160;JARI&#160;has&#160;supported the economic growth and diversification of Pennsylvania’s Southern Alleghenies region. Their service area in Greater&#160;Johnstown, Pennsylvania&#160;historically relied on the steel and coal industries, and&#160;like other Appalachian communities&#160;needed to diversify its&#160;local and regional&#160;economic bases to&#160;improve long-term&#160;vitality.&#160; In order to&#160;best carry out its mission and boost diverse economic and community growth, JARI’s focus&#160;expanded&#160;to strengthening resources and [&#8230;]The post Startup Alleghenies: Empowering the Cycle of Entrepreneurship appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Southern Alleghenies Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Steven Howsare Email &#160;sapd&#99;&#64;&#115;&#97;&#112;&#x64;&#x63;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Southern Alleghenies Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Reed’s, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J.
        Reed, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.
  Date:
                  November 11, 2008
              /s/
                  Christopher J. ReedChristopher
                  J. Reed
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                  Officer
# Death of Sandra Day O'Connor

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was an American icon, the first woman on our Nation's highest court. She spent her career committed to the stable center, pragmatic and in search of common ground. Defined by her no-nonsense Arizona ranch roots, Justice O'Connor overcame discrimination early on, at a time when law firms too often told women to seek work as secretaries, not attorneys. She gave her life to public service, even holding elected office, and never forgot those ties to the people whom the law is meant to serve. She sought to avoid ideology, and was devoted to the rule of law and to the bedrock American principle of an independent judiciary. Justice O'Connor never quit striving to make this Nation stronger, calling on us all to engage with our country and with one another, and her institute's work to promote civics education and civil discourse has touched millions. She knew that for democracy to work, we have to listen to each other, and remember how much more we all have in common as Americans than what keeps us apart.

As a mark of respect for the memory and longstanding service of Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that on the day of her interment, the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset on such day. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

[FR Doc. 2023-27043

Billing code 3395-F4-P