alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009193EN.01003302.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/33

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)

(Case T-389/08) (1)

1

2009/C 193/53

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 13.1

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company
Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rong Guangdao, the Chairman of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Date: June 25, 2008



By:

/S/    RONG GUANGDAOName:

Rong GuangdaoTitle:

Chairman
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4574 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 461
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4574

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             June 14, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
       at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the 
        ``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 461

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4574

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
       at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the 
        ``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 14, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
# C_2009180EN.01002102.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-335/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for damages - Regulations (EEC) Nos 517/72 and 684/92 - International carriage of passengers by coach and bus - Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability - Limitation period)

2009/C 180/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: D. Schönberger, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and N. Yerrell, agents.)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transport Schiocchet v Commission dismissing as inadmissible, on the ground of limitation, the action brought by the appellant seeking a declaration of non-contractual liability and compensation for harm sustained as a result of various illegal acts committed by the Community institutions — Conditions for bringing an action for damages — Concepts of regular service and special regular service within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States (OJ 1972 L 67, p. 19), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1)

Transport Schiocchet

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

        We have issued our report dated March 8, 1996, accompanying the 
consolidated financial statements of Bayport Restaurant Group, Inc. included in 
the Annual Report of Landry's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. on Form 10-K for the 
year ended December 31, 1997. We hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference of said report in the previously filed Registration Statements of 
Landry's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-2867) and (File 
No. 333-2854) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-08401).


GRANT THORNTON LLP

Miami, Florida
February 16, 1998
# C_2010234EN.01003601.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/36

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-571/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Information injunction - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 234/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
# C_2011030EN.01005603.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/56

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)

(Case T-578/08) (1)

1

()

2011/C 30/100

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0575

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.L.,

 A Youth in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2022

06/08/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0575
# C_2011046EN.01000903.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate)

(Case T-337/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 46/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2008 (Case R 780/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a reindeer made of chocolate.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
#### Dominick Romagna, Plaintiff, *v.*Angelo Romagna et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

August 28, 1959.

*M. Rudolph Preuss*for plaintiff.

*Oscar Murov*for Norma Esposito, defendant.

Fred J. Mttnder, J.

This is a motion to strike items from the demand for a bill of particulars, actually in effect to vacate the demand. The demand itself is prolix and burdensome but the relief sought on this motion is conversely as drastic.

The action is by an ailing father against his son and married daughter to impress a trust or secure the conveyance to him of four parcels of real property by which, he says, the children are unjustly enriched. They inherited their interests in the real property on the death, intestate, of their mother. The father claims that he, being a contractor and seeking to avoid any loss of property by reverses in his business, gave his wife money to put in her bank account and had the title to real property for *985which he paid, put in his wife’s name on her agreement to hold it for his benefit. While she lived, he says, he had the benefit of all this property. However, since she died intestate the children have shared in the title and now deny him the full income and benefit of the property.

There is no allegation of fraud on the wife’s part nor any of promise on the part of defendants. What the plaintiff asks is that equity decree that the children convey to him the real property left by his wife because (1) he paid for it; (2) the wife agreed to hold it for his benefit; and (3) he exercised rights of ownership of it by directing the management and control of the property.

This is not the ordinary case of a person seeking the reconveyance of property from one standing in a position of confidential relationship. There is no allegation of fraud or undue influence, nor of breach of any oral or written agreement to hold for plaintiff’s benefit or reconvey on demand. There is no allegation that the defendants knew of any such agreement, if one existed.

Thus the rule that proof of general statements, general conduct and tacit promises suffice to establish an agreement to reconvey, if those circumstances warrant the conclusion of such an intendment *(Farano*v. *Stephanelli,*7 A D 2d 420), does not here apply. The relationship of the parties alone does not entitle plaintiff to the judgment he seeks. He must show a clear agreement by the wife to convey to him, or on her death, to devise it to him by her will. And he must prove it by evidence not prohibited by section 347 of the Civil Practice Act.

Consequently the defendants are entitled to particulars in considerable detail so that they may prepare for trial. Item 4 of the demand, however, is unnecessarily burdensome, repetitious of Item 3, and simply calls for a statement of the plaintiff’s evidence. For these reasons it will be stricken.

The motion to modify is granted to the extent above indicated. Submit order.
# Mitchell - Appalachian Regional Commission

- High Country Council of Governments Executive Director Julie Wiggins Email  jw&#105;&#103;&#103;&#x69;&#x6e;&#x73;&#x40;hc&#99;&#111;&#103;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post High Country Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California:
       H.R. 6336.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is 
     the power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislation, in 
     all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia as 
     described in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of 
     the United States of America.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sian Mai, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered March 21, 1990, convicting defendant after jury trial of four counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2V£ to 7 Vi years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robberies committed in two Chinese restaurants in which he and an accomplice used the same *modus operandi.*Defendant stood with his hand in his pocket, as if he were concealing a weapon, while the accomplice told the cashier that he was from the Ghost Shadows Gang and demanded money. His defense was, essentially, that his accomplice tricked him into going along on the robberies and that he did not even know the accomplice was committing the robberies.

The trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to admit testimony and a report of a psychologist regarding defendant’s allegedly low I.Q., made after the testimony of the first witness, was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant failed to comply with the notice requirements of CPL 250.10 (2). The evidence was in counsel’s possession for over two months prior to trial and a sufficient excuse for the failure to timely give notice was not established. Moreover, if the evidence had been admitted, the People would have been prejudiced by virtue of the delay it would have caused in the trial.

No issue has been preserved with respect to the readback of testimony, in the absence of the Trial Justice, as defendant in fact consented to this procedure. *(See, People v Morman,*137 AD2d 838 [1988], *Iv denied*71 NY2d 900 [1988].) In any event, the court was available to maintain control over the readback, and did, in fact, appear to resolve a dispute as to the scope of the readback, after which it continued in the court’s absence. Defendant’s reliance on *People v Torres*(72 NY2d 1007 [1988]) *693and *People v Ahmed*(66 NY2d 307 [1985]) is misplaced as in those cases a court officer and the trial court’s law secretary delivered fundamental instructions, whereas here no instructions, fundamental or otherwise, were given out of the court’s presence or by anyone other than the trial court itself. Nevertheless, a readback of testimony in the absence of the court is not a favored procedure.

The Trial Justice’s failure, *sua sponte,*to order a psychiatric hearing was not improper. The record indicates that the defendant testified responsively with respect to all substantive questions. Nothing developed either at trial or sentence to call in question defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial, and the court’s decision not to pursue a psychiatric examination was, on this record, entirely within its discretion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 – Koinotita Grammatikou v Commission**

**(Case T-13/08)**

Action for annulment – Cohesion Fund – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Commission decision granting a Member State, under the Cohesion Fund, financial assistance for the construction of a landfill
site (Art. 230, para. 4, EC) (see paras 25-30)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”’. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Koinotita Grammatikou to pay the costs. |
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 – Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission**

**(Case T-45/08)**

Action for annulment – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Starting point – Publication in the Official Journal – Alleged lack of locus standi at the date of publication – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication of the measure in question
(Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 29-30)*

2.                     *Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force
majeure (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 30)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Locus standi – Assessment by the Community judicative alone (Art. 230 EC)
(see para. 32)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings made by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders it not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08816**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08816\08816_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08816\08816_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08816\08816_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08816\08816_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\08816_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\08816_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\08816_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\08816_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\08816_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08816\Supplemental Documents\08816_Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08816\Supplemental Documents\08816_Silas Ray Power Plant.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Global Media Group Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory Fish, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/S/ GREGORY FISH
-----------------------
Gregory Fish
Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 15, 2006
#### In the Matter of Glenn D. Bell, Appellant, v Angela Cosentino et al., Respondents, and Vincent J. Cuttita et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating the respondents-respondents as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the party position of Member of the Republican Party County Committee of Kings County in the 57th Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 6, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is an enrolled voter in the 57th Assembly District or that he is an "aggrieved candidate” within the meaning of the Election Law *(see,*Election Law § 6-154 [2]; § 16-102 [1]; *Lucariello v Niebel,*72 NY2d 927). Thus, the proceeding was properly dismissed for lack of standing. We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.