alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021138EN.01004901.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/49

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-111/21)

(2021/C 138/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 30 November 2020 on State aid SA.55373 (2020/N) — Croatia — COVID-19: Damage compensation to Croatia Airlines (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 30 November 2020 on State aid SA.55373 (2020/N) — Croatia — COVID-19: Damage compensation to Croatia Airlines (1); and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalization of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services and free establishment (2)). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalization of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services and free establishment (2)).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 17, p. 3.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

---
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 Years Ended December 31,2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    201,008
    
    
    $
    121,609
    
    
    $
    106,111
    
    
    $
    100,658
    
    
    $
    106,188Add:Interest expense
    
    
    245,895
    
    
    
    164,035
    
    
    
    125,108
    
    
    
    107,791
    
    
    
    107,978Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    446,903
    
    
    $
    285,644
    
    
    $
    231,219
    
    
    $
    208,449
    
    
    $
    214,166Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    245,895
    
    
    $
    164,035
    
    
    $
    125,108
    
    
    $
    107,791
    
    
    $
    107,978Capitalized interest
    
    
    51,808
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377Total fixed charges
    
    $
    297,703
    
    
    $
    203,146
    
    
    $
    148,680
    
    
    $
    134,645
    
    
    $
    140,355Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.5
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods presented
to conform with the list of communities in discontinued operations as of December 31, 2006.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.1
                                                                ------------

                          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 Annual Report of PGI, Incorporated (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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 represents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Registrant.




/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer                                      March 30, 2004
------------------------
Laurence A. Schiffer
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)




<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of National Housing Trust Limited Partnership (the
Partnership) for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Bowman, Chief Executive Officer of NHT, Inc. the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |    |  |                     |  |                                           
|------------------ |  |  |  | -- |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: June 5, 2008 |  |  |  | By |  | /s/ James A. Bowman
|                   |  |  |  |    |  |                     |  | James A. Bowman, President                
|                   |  |  |  |    |  |                     |  | and Chief Executive Officer               
|                   |  |  |  |    |  |                     |  | NHT, Inc., General Partner for            
|                   |  |  |  |    |  |                     |  | National Housing Trust Limited Partnership
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11224-11225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5971]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-028)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
    Copies of patent applications cited are available from the Office 
of Patent Counsel, Langley Research Center. Claims are deleted from the 
patent applications to avoid premature disclosure.

DATES: March 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Patent Counsel, Langley 
Research Center, Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-0001; telephone (757) 
864-9260.
    NASA Case No. LAR-15295-1: Sawtooth Planform Concept;
    NASA Case No. LAR-15555-1: Molecular Level Coating of Metal Oxide 
Particles;
    NASA Case No. LAR-15601-1: Base Passive Porosity for Drag Reduction 
(CIP of LAR-15246-1);
    NASA Case No. LAR-15412-2: Imide Oligomers and Co-Oligomers 
Containing Pendent Phenylethynl Groups and Polymers Therefrom (Div of-
1)
    NASA Case No. LAR-14640-3-CU: An Interferometer Having Fused 
Optical Fibers, and Apparatus and Method Using the Interferometer (FWC 
of-2);
    NASA Case No. LAR-15376-1: Relative Phase Measurement Instrument 
for Multiple Echo Systems;
    NASA Case No. LAR-14448-3-SB: Multi-Layer Light-Weight, Protective 
Coating and Method for Application (Div of-1);
    NASA Case No. LAR-15437-1: A Fire Resistant, Moisture Barrier 
Membrane;
    NASA Case No. LAR-15280-SB: Cryogenic High Pressure Sensor (Cont 
of-1);
    NASA Case No. LAR-15402-1: High Security Composite Safe;
    NASA Case No. LAR-14673-1: Material;
    NASA Case No. LAR-15017-1-SB: Polyimides Prepared in Bisphenol A;
    NASA Case No. LAR-15251-7: Process for Controlling Morphology & 
Improving Thermal-Mechanical Performance of High Performance Polymer 
Networks;

[[Page 11225]]

    NASA Case No. LAR-15138-2: Piezoelectric Loudspeaker and Transducer 
(FWC of-1);
    NASA Case No. LAR-14840-1: Variable and Fixed Frequency Pulsed 
Phase-Locked Loop.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-5971 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1294. JUSTISS v. THE STATE. 

This is a pro se appeal from the denial of Oscar Justiss’s motion to withdraw

his guilty plea to child molestation charges. The appeal was docketed on March 23,

2016, such that Justiss’s initial brief was due on April 13, 2016. Court of Appeals

Rule 13. On that day, this Court ordered Justiss to file an initial brief, warning that

failure to do so, “absent an extension upon motion for good cause shown,” would

result in the dismissal of the appeal “instanter without further notice.”

As of May 2, 2016, Justiss has neither filed an initial brief nor moved for an

extension to do so. This appeal is therefore DISMISSED. See Rowland v. State, 264

Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995); Reese v. State, 216 Ga. App. 773 (456 SE2d 271)

(1995).

We also instructJustiss asfollows: Your appeal has been DISMISSED because

you failed to file a brief and enumeration of errors. If you have decided you do not

want to appeal, you need not do anything more. However, if you do still want to

appeal, you may have the right to an OUT-OF-TIME APPEAL -- but YOU MUST

TAKE ACTION to exercise that right by moving for an out-of-time appeal in the trial

court. If your motion for an out-of-time appeal is granted, the trial court should

appoint an attorney for you if you want one and cannot pay for one. If your motion

for an out-of-time appeal is denied, you may appeal that denial to this court within

thirty (30) days of the trial court’s decision. See Reese, 216 Ga. App. at 775.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/05/2016

May 05, 2016
#### RENSMAN, C. v. UCBR

475 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/02/2017

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, B-595703

Affirmed
#### COM. v. HARDING, R.

1697 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

CP-51-CR-0011285-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
# C_2023296EN.01001201.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO

(Case C-462/22, (1) BM (Residence of the divorce applicant))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) - Forum actoris - Condition - Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made)

(2023/C 296/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BM

Defendant: LO

Operative part of the judgment

The sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000,

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6758

AARON S. PRETTY, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional Institution; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00140-WO-PTS)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron S. Pretty, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aaron S. Petty, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pretty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Videocon
d2h Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F/A of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 5, 2016



By:

/s/ Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootName:

Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootTitle:

Executive Chairman


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
# C_2023304EN.01002201.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission

(Case T-34/22) (1)

(Protected geographical indication - Protected designation of origin - Applications for protection of the geographical indications ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ and ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ - Earlier protected designations of origin ‘Jambon sec de Corse — Prisuttu’, ‘Lonzo de Corse — Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse — Coppa di Corsica’ - Eligibility of names - Evocation - Article 7(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Scope of the Commission’s control of the applications for registration - Article 50(1) and Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 304/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses (Borgo, France) and the 9 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: T. de Haan and V. Le Meur-Baudry, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, C. Perrin and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’) (PGI) (OJ 2021 L 383, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---
# C_2022119EN.01005402.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/54

---

Action brought on 24 January 2022 — International Masis Tabak v EUIPO — Philip Morris Brands (Representation of a pack of cigarettes)

(Case T-44/22)

(2022/C 119/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Masis Tabak LLC (Masis, Armenia) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a pack of cigarettes) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 434 506

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2021 in Case R 261/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
RESOLVED, that effective March 19, 1998, the Fixed Benefit Option provisions of
the  Deferred  Compensation  Plan  for  Key  Employees  be, and they hereby are,
amended to provide that, with respect to a participant with deferrals under that
Option  who  dies while employed by the Company after March 19, 1998, and who is
55  or  older  at the date of death, his or her beneficiary under the Plan shall
receive  the  greater  of  the  15-year certain Retirement Income Benefit or the
15-year  certain  Survivor  Income  Benefit  under  the  Plan,  and

     FURTHER  RESOLVED, that J. P. Mulcahy, W. P. McGinnis and C. S. Sommer, and
each  of  them,  be,  and they hereby are, authorized to do any and all acts and
execute  any  and  all  documents  deemed  necessary  or desirable to effect the
foregoing  amendment.