alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Nicholas E. Farinella, Petitioner, v De Forest C. Pitt, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty retirement benefits.

In order for petitioner to be eligible for performance of duty *978retirement benefits, petitioner must prove that, at the time his application was filed, he was physically incapacitated from performing his duties as a firefighter *(see,*Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c). The record contains conflicting medical opinions as to whether petitioner was permanently disabled on that date. It is within respondent Comptroller’s authority to evaluate and reject conflicting medical evidence *(see, Matter of Huether v Regan,*169 AD2d 907), and the Comptroller is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another *(see, Matter of Rubinski v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys.,*156 AD2d 888, 889). Here, James Holmblad testified that petitioner was capable of performing his duties as of the date of his examination. Accordingly, because the Comptroller’s determination denying petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld *(see, supra).*

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
# C_2008285EN.01001801.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

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2008 — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-352/08)

(2008/C 285/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

Applicant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Question referred

Must Article 11(1)(a) of [Council] Directive 90/434/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 be interpreted as meaning that the benefits of that Directive may be withheld from a tax-payer where a series of legal transactions is aimed at preventing the levying of a tax other than the taxes to which the benefits set out in that Directive relate?

1

---

(1)  [Council] Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).

1

---
#### Nathan *J.*ELLIS, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12853.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 6, 1960.

*408Nathan J. Ellis, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus wherein the petitioner seeks his release from the State Penitentiary.

The records of this Court reveal that this petitioner was charged in the district court of Custer County along with one Sylvester Bearshield, with the murder of Victor Click. A severance was granted, and the jury found the petitioner herein guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal was perfected to this Court, and by reason of certain instructions given the jury, the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. See Ellis v. State, Okl.Cr., 318 P.2d 629.

Petitioner was subsequently tried again, found guilty of the included offense of manslaughter in the first degree and the jury fixed his punishment at 60 years in the State Penitentiary. This case was also appealed, and the judgment and sentence was affirmed. Ellis v. State, Okl.Cr., 331 P.2d 415.

This proceeding is filed by the petitioner without the aid of an attorney. He complains of prejudicial remarks of the county attorney in the course of his second trial; and of the admission of improper evidence, and that he was not given a fair and impartial trial.

All of the matters and facts set forth in the petition filed herein, if true, were in existence and known to petitioner and his counsel at the time the appeal herein was filed. We have consistently said that this Court will not permit an accused to appeal his judgment of conviction and speculate upon his chances of securing a. reversal, and then, after the judgment of conviction is affirmed, come into court in a habeas corpus proceeding and raise the same or other grounds which might entitle the petitioner to a new trial or his release from custody. To do so would not he conducive to the efficient administration of our criminal laws. If this were not so, then a criminal case would never end, hut after trial and conviction, the court would be called upon to again try the issues by habeas corpus; and so far as we have been able to ascertain, this Court has never issued the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of releasing a petitioner from confinement after the prisoner has had his judgment of conviction reviewed and affirmed by this Court. Ex parte Herren, 74 Okl.Cr. 154, 124 P.2d 276; Ex parte Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406, 126 P.2d 751; Ex parte Baker, 76 Okl.Cr. 396, 137 P.2d 242, 243; Ex parte Washington, 92 Okl.Cr. 337, 223 P.2d 552; DeWolf v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 382, 256 P.2d 191, certiorari denied De Wolf v. Waters, 345 U.S. 953, 73 S.Ct. 871, 97 L.Ed. 1375.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Regions Requesting APHIS Recognition of Animal Health Status

Country Region Disease(s)

Argentina Patagonia Norte A FMD without vaccination

Australia Entire territory Bovine brucellosis

Australia Entire territory Bovine tuberculosis

Brazil Entire territory Newcastle Disease

Brazil Brazilian States (Acre, Pará, Maranhão, 

Piuaí, Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, 

Paraíba, Pernambuco, Alagoas, 

Amazonas, Amapá and Roraima)

FMD

Bulgaria (EU) Entire territory CSF, FMD, rinderpest

Bulgaria (EU) Entire territory HPAI, Newcastle disease

Canada Entire territory Bovine brucellosis

Canada Entire territory Bovine tuberculosis

China 5 regions HPAI, Newcastle Disease

Colombia Single region FMD

Croatia Entire territory HPAI, Newcastle disease

Honduras Entire territory Newcastle Disease

Italy (EU) Region of Tuscany SVD

Italy (EU) Region of Umbria SVD

Japan Entire territory CSF, SVD

Malta (EU) Entire territory ASF, CSF, FMD, SVD, Rinderpest

Mexico Entire territory CSF

Mexico Entire territory Bovine tuberculosis

Mexico State of Baja California Cattle fever ticks

Mexico States of Baja California, Chihuahua, 

Coahuila, Durango, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, 

Newcastle Disease
Jalisco, and the Lagunera region of 

Mexico.

Mexico State of Sonora Bovine brucellosis

Panama Entire territory Newcastle Disease

Paraguay Entire territory FMD

Peru Entire territory FMD

Romania (EU) Entire territory CSF, FMD, Rinderpest

Romania (EU) Entire territory HPAI, Newcastle Disease

Russia Entire territory FMD

Serbia Entire territory FMD

Singapore Entire territory FMD

South Africa Single region FMD

South Korea Entire territory FMD, Rinderpest

South Korea Entire territory HPAI

Taiwan Entire territory HPAI, Newcastle Disease

Turkey Entire territory HPAI

Ukraine Entire territory HPAI, Newcastle Disease

Updated November 8, 2017
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐468/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Recognition of professional qualifications – Directive 2005/36/EC – Failure to transpose

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 5)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2009069EN.01001701.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

---

Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-477/08)

(2009/C 69/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, 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 prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 20 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10085

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCUS HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-066-1-A

- - - - - - - - - -

September 24, 1997

Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of

his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Harris argues that his

guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not

understand that his unconditional guilty plea would waive his

right to appeal his claim pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. 

Harris further argues that the district court abused its

discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
No. 97-10085

-2-

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

The district court complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11(c) and informed Harris that he was waiving his right to a

speedy and public trial by pleading guilty. United States v.

Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Bond, 87 F.3d 695,

701 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. PD-1846-11 VICTOR MARTINEZGA RCIA, Appellant

v. THE S TATE O F TEXAS On Discre tionary

Review of Ca se 13-10- 00284-CR of the Thirte enth Court of Appe als, San Patricio County W O M A C K , J., filed a conc urring opinion i n which Keller, P.J., joined. J udg e Johnson’s concurringopinion ( post) points out that, by

not executing the w arr ant of arr est from the a

ppellant’s other

judgme nt of conviction, the State pre vented the a ppellant from ear ning c redit toward the sentenc e in that other c ase at the same time he w as ser ving a sentenc e that was imposed ea

rlier. As a result, he “ will remain in the Texas prison sy stem, at state expense, two year s longe r than he would have if the war rant ha d been e x ecute d promptly , a deta iner2

place d on him, and [a] hear ing he ld on the motion to revoke.” This she r eg ards a s a “disrupt[ion] , by neg lige nce or

desig n, [of] the orde rly

working s of the justice sy stem.” Post , at 2. Well, no. There is nothing disorder ly in a def endant, who w as convic ted of two off enses, se rving two sentenc es. The de cision whether sentenc es run c oncurr ently or conse cutively

is one of the order ly working s of the justice sy stem. Prosecutors a nd judge s make them e very day in ever y case in which a de fenda

nt has committed multi ple offe nses that ar e within the jurisdiction of the court. The y

have to de cide how to a llocate limited resour ces that are provided for the probation and inca rce ration of c riminal offe nders So far a s the rec ord bef

ore us shows, the judg e and the prosec utors have use d, in a prope r way , proce dures that ha

ve re sulted in a defe ndant servingtwo sentenc es for two crimes of

which he wa s convicted. The only thing that wa s disrupted was the a ppellant’s hope of

beingpunished only once f or his two crimes. Ijoin the judgment a

nd opinion of the Court. Filed De cembe r 12, 2012. Publis h.
# C_2008223EN.01002901.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad S.A.

(Case C-277/08)

(2008/C 223/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

Applicant:

Defendant: Madrid Movilidad S.A.

Defendant:

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that when the period of leave allocated in the undertaking's annual planning of leave coincides in time with a temporary disability following an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began, the employee affected, once he returns to work, has the right to use his leave on dates different from those originally allocated, irrespective of whether the calendar year to which they relate has ended?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

1

---
# C_2008272EN.01000901.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/9

---

Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-330/08)

(2008/C 272/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

1

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

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC expired on 30 April 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary for transposition.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.

1

---
Exhibit  32
-----------

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


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Seamless  Wi-Fi, Inc (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  the  undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated
below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  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.


     Date:  May  17,  2006
     /s/  Albert  R.  Reda
     ---------------------
     Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
#### James WATERS and John T. Harley, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. J. BUMPERS and T. H. Ottesen, Defendants in Error.

No. 37230.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 17, 1958.

*463John T. Harley, Charles C. Liebler, Harley Van Cleave, Raymon B. Thomas, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

T. H. Ottesen, Millard F, Lowrance, Sul-phur, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an attempted appeal by petition in •error with case-made attached. Judgment ■by the court quieting title in various parties was entered on July 28, 1955, and motion for new trial was overruled on September 29, 1955. Case-made was settled, signed and certified by the trial judge on December 28, 1955. The petition in error with case-made .attached was not filed in this court until January 24, 1956, twenty-seven days after the case-made was settled.

Our statute requires that proceedings be commenced within twenty (20) days from the date the case-made is settled. 12 O.S. 1955 Supp. Sec. 972. It is apparent that this court is without jurisdiction to review the .appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commission in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by the Commission, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 24.6


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY






             KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned officer and/or
     director of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),
     which is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended on Form 10-K, hereby 
     constitutes and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Daniel J. Distel and James
     E. Knox, each of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
     agents, with full power and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form
     10-K and any and all amendments thereto, and any other documents in      
     connection therewith, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commision, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and 
     authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and 
     necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents 
     and purposes as she or he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying 
     and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their 
     substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue 
     hereof.




             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her
     hand and seal as of the 15th day of March, 1997.



                                
                                                 /s/ William H. Lambert
                                                 ------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28460]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE


Notice of FMCS Convening Policy

AGENCY: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is 
issuing this notice to inform the public of FMCS's intent to convene 
parties who are currently in a work stoppage.

DATES: December 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Schindler, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#523021313a3b3c363e372012343f31217c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="accedfcfc4c5c2c8c0c9deeccac1cfdf82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>, 
(206) 553-5801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 7, 2023, 29 CFR part 1406 became 
effective. This rule provides that ``FMCS may convene the parties for a 
threatened or actual work stoppage whenever in its judgment such 
dispute threatens to cause a substantial interruption of commerce'' and 
that ``FMCS will determine the date, time, place, and manner (virtual, 
in-person, or hybrid) of services.'' 29 CFR 1406.1 (b) and (c). FMCS 
hereby provides notice that FMCS intends to convene parties involved in 
private sector work stoppages for the purposes of mediating the 
dispute. FMCS will convene parties for work stoppages that proceed 
unabated for 30 continuous calendar days or fewer, if the parties are 
in certain critical industries. Exceptions will apply if the work 
stoppage does not threaten to cause a substantial interruption of 
commerce. Parties will be provided written notice of the date, time, 
place, and manner (virtual, in-person, or hybrid) of the mediation. The 
parties will continue to be convened at regular intervals until the 
work stoppage is resolved.

    Dated: December 20, 2023.
Anna Davis,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-28460 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6732-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>