alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022213EN.01002301.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2022 — ALD Automotive s.r.o. v DY, insolvency administrator of the debtor GEDEM-STAV a.s.

(Case C-78/22)

(2022/C 213/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ALD Automotive s.r.o.

Defendant: DY, insolvency administrator of the debtor GEDEM-STAV a.s.

Questions referred

| 1. | On the basis of what criteria does the entitlement to obtain the fixed sum of at least EUR 40 arise pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council in the case of agreements with recurring or ongoing performance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of what criteria does the entitlement to obtain the fixed sum of at least EUR 40 arise pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council in the case of agreements with recurring or ongoing performance?

| 2. | Can the claim pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Directive be refused by Member State courts on the grounds of the application of general private-law principles? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the claim pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Directive be refused by Member State courts on the grounds of the application of general private-law principles?

| 3. | If the response to the second question is in the affirmative, subject to what conditions can Member State courts refuse to award the amount of the claim under Article 6(1) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the response to the second question is in the affirmative, subject to what conditions can Member State courts refuse to award the amount of the claim under Article 6(1) of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 9, 2017

T0309

Order 

Clerk

March 9, 2017

155416 & (24)(25)

JAMES SUTIKA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 155416

v COA: 337144 

Roscommon CC: 16-723378-AS

ROSCOMMON COUNTY CLERK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and to expedite are 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of 

Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the Court 

of Appeals. However, we ORDER the Court of Appeals to expedite its consideration of 

this case.
#### Miguel Armando SIERRA-JACOBO, AKA Miguel Armando Sierra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73340

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Maria Zlateva, Maria Zlateva, P.C., Salem, OR, for Petitioner

Bryan Stuart Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel *601ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Armando Sierra-Jacobo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to terminate and ordering his removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA did not have the benefit of *Sandoval v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that the definition of “delivery” under Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) § 475.005 includes mere solicitation, when it held that delivery of marijuana for consideration under ORS § 475.860(2) and delivery of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school under ORS § 475.862 were aggravated felonies. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11423-11424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-8-16-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 5A, 
with a proposed effective date of March 1, 1997.
    National states that pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the 
approved settlement at Docket Nos. RP94-367-000, et al., National is 
required to recalculate the maximum Interruptible Gathering (``IG'') 
rate monthly and to charge that rate on the first day of the following 
month if the result is an IG rate more than 2 cents above or below the 
IG rate as calculated under Section 1 of Article II. The recalculation 
produced an IG rate of 22 cents per dth.
    National further states that, as required by Article II, Section 4, 
National is filing a revised tariff sheet within 30 days of the 
effective date for the revised IG rate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on

[[Page 11424]]

file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6110 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EX-4.65



 Exhibit 4.65 

Third Supplementary Agreement to the Software License Agreement 

This third supplementary agreement to the software license agreement (this “Supplementary Agreement”) is entered into in
Beijing on August 15, 2013 by and between: 
 Licensor: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Address: 3/F, Baidu Campus, No.10, Shangdi 10th Street, Haidian District, Beijing (“Party
A”) 
 Licensee: Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technnology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 2/F, Baidu Campus, No.10 Shangdi 10th Street, Haidian District, Beijing (“Party
B”) 
 (Collectively, the “Parties”) 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Licensor and Licensee have made a software license agreement (the “Original Agreement”). Through friendly negotiation, the Parties amend the Original Agreement on August 15, 2013 with respect to
the following: 

  

	 	(a)	Amend Section 6.1 to: this Agreement shall be executed and effective at the same time at the date first written above. Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Agreement, this Agreement shall be valid permanently.


  

	 	(b)	Delete Section 6.2. 

  

	 	(c)	The Parties agree and confirm: this Supplementary Agreement is an integral part of the Original Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy between this Supplementary Agreement and the Original Agreement, this
Supplementary Agreement shall prevail. For the parts not stated in this Supplementary Agreement shall be in accordance with the Original Agreement. 

  

	2	This Supplementary Agreement shall be effective upon execution by both Parties. 

  

	3	This Supplementary Agreement shall be executed in two originals, with each party holding one original. Each original has the same legal effect. 


[Signature page follows] 







 Licensor: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Licensee: Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. 

  
 2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                                          Exhibit 11.1

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)

                                                          Quarters                      Six Months
PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30                               2001            2000           2001            2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
-------------------------
<S>                                         <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>
Net Income (Loss) .......................   $(13,982,000)   $  2,949,000   $(13,311,000)   $  4,159,000
                                            ============    ============   ============    ============

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding .....      3,856,904       3,813,910      3,856,904       3,807,939
                                            ============    ============   ============    ============

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share .........        $ (3.63)          $ .77        $ (3.45)         $ 1.09
                                                 =======           =====        =======          ======

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
---------------------------

Net Income (Loss) .......................   $(13,982,000)   $  2,949,000   $(13,311,000)   $  4,159,000
                                            ============    ============   ============    ============

Weighted Average and Dilutive Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding ...      3,856,904       3,813,910      3,856,904       3,807,939
  Dilutive shares .......................             --         363,962             --         274,201
                                            ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
                                               3,856,904       4,177,872      3,856,904       4,082,140
                                            ============    ============   ============    ============

Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share .......        $ (3.63)          $ .71        $ (3.45)         $ 1.02
                                                 =======           =====        =======          ======
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                           EXHIBIT 24.1 TO FORM 8-K

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use in this Current Report on Form 8-K of our report dated 
July 8, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of IWC Services, Inc. 
and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1996 and April 30, 1997, and the related 
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for 
the period from May 4, 1995 (inception) through June 30, 1995, the year ended 
June 30, 1996, and the ten months ended April 30, 1997. We also consent to the 
use in this Current Report on Form 8-K of our report dated June 25, 1997, 
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Boots & Coots, L.P. and 
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1996, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash flows for the years then 
ended.


/s/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP

Hein & Associates LLP
August 13, 1997
APPELLANT ' S M OTION FOR EXTENSION P AGE 1 O F 2 

### NO. 14

- 15

- 00628

- CV

__________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON, TX

__________________________________________ DEBBIE PATTILLO, APPELLANT , V.

SYLVIA FRANCO, APPELLEE.

___________________________________________________________ On Appeal from Cause No. 1024502 County Court at Law No. 4, Harris County, Texas Honorable Roberta Lloyd, Presiding Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF

_____________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JU STICES OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS :

Appellant , Debbie Pattillo, files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File

Appellant’s Brief and in support shows the following:

1. Appellant’s Brief is due on October 22, 2015. Appellant requests an extension tim e of

thirty days, to November 20, 2015 to file its Brief.

2. Appellant relies on the following facts as a reasonable explanation for the requested

extension of time: The trial transcript was filed on 9/22/2015 but Appellant did not

receive the trial transcript un til October 13, 2015. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel

was called for jury duty and has not had time to finsh the brief by the filing deadline

of 10/22/2015. The extension is not sought for the purpose of delay.

3. The undersigned has conferred with opp osing counsel

, Kelli Smith who indicated

there was no opposition to this request.

WHEREFORE, ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant DEBBIE

PATTILLO

, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grant this motion for extension of time. ACCEPTED 14-15-00628-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/21/2015 3:16:46 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKAPPELLANT ' S M OTION FOR EXTENSION P AGE 2 O F 2 Respectfully submitted,

BAILEY & GALYEN 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 860 Dallas, TX 75204 (214) 252

- 9099

- Office (214) 520

- 9941

– Facsimile srobelen@galyen.com

- Email

By:

___ /s/ Scott G. Robelen

. Sco tt G. Robelen Texas State Bar No.: 16990045 Federal Bar No.: 870867 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that my assistant conferred with Kelli Smith on October 21, 2015 who indicated that this motion is unopposed.

___ /s/ Scott G. Robelen

. Scott G. Robelen

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on 21st day of October , 2015, I served a copy of this motion by Facsimile at

(713) 739

- 7420 and ECF to : Kelli Smith and Barbara Hachenburg who are the attorney s in
charge for Appellee

, SYLVIA FRANCO APPELLEE , and whose address is G ERMER P LLC ,
Three Allen Center, 333 Clay Street, Suite 4950

, Houston

, TX 77002

, (713) 650

- 1313
Telephone and (713) 739

- 7420 Facsimile

___ /s/ Scott G. Robelen

. Scott G. Robelen
# Title IV

- Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on the Recent Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Collection The National Center for Education Statistics today released the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). IPEDS gathers information annually from U.S. college, university, and technical and vocational institutions eligible to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial aid programs.
- U.S. Department of Education Takes Action Against Five Schools for Disbursing Federal Student Aid to Students Enrolled in Unaccredited Programs Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department)  announced settlement agreements with five law schools after a Federal Student  Aid (FSA) investigation revealed that the schools improperly disbursed Title IV funds to students enrolled in unaccredited Master of Laws (LL.M.)  programs.
0

6,754

0

6,754

BallotsCounted

113

61

0

174

BallotsRejected

KENTUCKY

Mail,Fax,Email

Election/Registrar's

Office

Internet

DM

V

Public

Assistance

Office

DisabilitiesAgency

Military

RecruitmentOffice

OtherState

Agency

RegistrationDrives

Registration:Other

1,0

41,906

206,518

157,552

41,13343,753

2,203

9,095

79100

RegistrationFormSource

TotalRegisteredVoters

3,306,120

SectionA-VoterRegistration

RegistrationFormsReceived

1,550,136

ConfirmationNotificationsSent

0

Polling

Place

UOCAVA Absentee Provisional

Ballot

EarlyVote

Center

Voteby

Mail

Turnout:

Other

1,838,570

38,112 80,206

7,690 294 0 0

SectionF-TurnoutbyMethod

CountedFull Counted

Part

Rejected Provisional:

Other

233

58

0 0

SectionE-ProvisionalBallots

UniformedService

Non-militaryOverseas

Other

SectionB-UOCAVA

4,162

3,528

0

7,690

BallotsTransmitted

TOTAL TOTAL

ProvisionalBallotTotal:291 TurnoutTotal:1,949,254

Note:Somefieldsmaybeblankorzeroduetodatanotbeingreportedor

jurisdictionsnotcollectingthatdata.

Select: KENTUCKY

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

  

2016EAVSDataBrief 

U i
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORTHLAND CRANBERRIES, INC. AS
OF AND FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1996
<CASH>                                           1,481
<SECURITIES>                                     1,260
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,124
<PP&E>                                         158,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,881
<BONDS>                                         75,265
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,489
<SALES>                                         23,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,433
<CGS>                                           11,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10656.

#### Winburn *v.*Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Wayne County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
10/27/2005 Revised Exposure Report Page 

### / of 7~ This report revised at request of VirginiaLee ofCCD on 10/26/2005. Assessor: FMessner10/27/2005 Revised Exposure Report Page eZof Z
# C_2021072EN.01003201.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

---

Action brought on 9 January 2021 — Griesbeck v Parliament

(Case T-10/21)

(2021/C 72/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nathalie Griesbeck (Ancy-sur-Moselle, France) (represented by: J. L. Teheux, J. M. Rikkers and G. Selnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

| — | annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;

consequently,

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and the subsequent debit note; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and the subsequent debit note;

alternatively:

| — | annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;

consequently,

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and reduce the consecutive debit note by an appropriate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and reduce the consecutive debit note by an appropriate amount;

in any event;

| — | provide the applicant with the opportunity to submit additional observations by way of subsequent submissions; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide the applicant with the opportunity to submit additional observations by way of subsequent submissions;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed the following errors of assessment. First, it ruled out that the specific circumstances of employment of the assistant concerned could have an influence on the evidence of that assistant’s work. Next, it did not take account of the time that had elapsed since the facts and the resulting loss of evidence. Lastly, it did not make use of the evidence provided by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of the right to a fair trial. In this respect, the applicant takes the view, essentially, that it is not for her to bear the burden of proof regarding her assistant’s work. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the Bureau took the view that the full amounts paid for the assistant’s working hours should be repaid, although the reality of her work had been demonstrated only partially. |
| --- | --- |

3.

---
No. 12-6197 (12A247).

#### Harris *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.