alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022441EN.01001202.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/12

---

Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by Vasile Dumitrescu, Guido Schwarz against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2022 in Case T-531/16, Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission

(Case C-567/22 P)

(2022/C 441/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vasile Dumitrescu, Guido Schwarz (represented by: L. Levi, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-531/16, Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-531/16, Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission;

| — | refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellants’ action at first instance is well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellants’ action at first instance is well founded;

| — | order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 45 TFEU, infringement by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons, error of legal characterisation and distortion of the contents of the file;

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the purpose of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the general principle of the right of an official to retain personal links with the place where his or her principal interests are situated, infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and distortion of the contents of the file;

The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment.

---
#### GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Appellant v. INLINE PACKAGING, LLC, Appellee

2017-1776

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 8, 2018

Barry J. Herman, Womble Carlyle San-dridge & Rice LLP, Baltimore, MD, argued for appellant. Also represented by Christine H. Dupriest, Washington, DC; James Frederick Vaughan, Atlanta, GA.

Chad E. Ziegler, Neustel Law Offices, Ltd., Fargo, ND, argued for appellee. Also represented by Michael S. Neustel.

(O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

*896JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

March 21, 2016 

Mr. Glenn Baxter 

Manager, C Series Airworthiness 

Bombardier Inc. 

400 chemin de la Cote-V ertu West 

Dorval, Quebec, Canada H4S 1 Y9 

Dear Mr. Baxter: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter no. AW-BD5/15/570, dated January 13, 2016, 

requesting exemption from the requirements ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) 25.901(c), for the Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. 

The exemption, if granted, would provide relief from powerplant-installation regulations 

regarding potential throttle-quadrant assembly (TQA) failure that could contribute, under 

specific simultaneously converging conditions, to an uncontrolled high-thrust (UHT) event 

under very limited and specific takeoff and landing scenarios. 

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), has been given Docket No. FAA-2016-2750. 

We have reviewed your petition and have determined that more information is needed 

before we can finalize our determination. 

To further justify that Bombardier has taken all practical actions to eliminate existing single 

failures, please provide the design details of the remaining single failure in the TQA that can 

result in UHT. The design data should include a description of the design features that 

support the elimination of external contamination, design loads, and retention capabilities 

for those specific areas of the TQA that are susceptible to a single failure. Please include 

relevant portions of the applicable safety analysis. 

After we receive your petition, you will be advised of the agency's decision as soon as 

possible. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Margaret Langsted at 425-227-2677, or e-mail, margaret.langsted@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Joh Regimbal 

Acting Manager, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112 

Transport Standards Staff
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

June 11, 2015

John Bennett Attorney at Law

P. O. Box 19144 Amarillo, TX 79114

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Warren L. Clark

Asst. Criminal District Attorney

Randall County Justice Center

2309 Russell Long Blvd., Suite 120 Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-15-00181-CR, 07-15-00182-CR

Trial Court Case Numbers: 18,607-B, 18,608-B

Style: Michael Don Denton v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The following was filed Wednesday, June 10, 2015, in the captioned appeals:

Reporter’s Record (5 volumes)

Very truly yours,



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable John B. Board (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Jodi Goodman (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63  of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, William M. Lasky, President and Chief Executive Officer of Accuride Corporation, certify that to my knowledge, (i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Accuride Corporation.

/s/ WILLIAM M. LASKY William M. Lasky President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 17, 2010


I,
James H. Woodward, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Accuride Corporation, certify that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Accuride
Corporation.

/s/ JAMES H. WOODWARD, JR. James H. Woodward, Jr. Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 17, 2010


1

---



QuickLinks
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, District Judge, Uni ted States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by design ation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 17 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT M. WATKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STEVE HARGETT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-7025 (D.C. No. 95-CV-560-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO and LUCERO, Circuit Judges, and MARTEN, ** District Judge.

Petitioner seeks review of the district court’s ord er dismissing his third petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 o n the grounds that the filing constituted an abuse of the writ. See McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 493-951 Because petitioner filed his habeas petition in 199 5, before enactment of

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act o f 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.1214, AEDPA’s certificate of appe alability requirements do not apply to this appeal. See United States v. Kunzman , No. 96-1310, 1997 WL 602507, at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 1997) (to be r eported at 125 F.3d 1363). Instead, the pre-AEDPA certificate of probable cau se requirements apply here. Regardless of the label we attach to the requiremen ts, petitioner’s substantive burden is the same, see Lennox v. Evans , 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997), overruled in part byKunzman , 1997 WL 602507 at *1 n.2, so we will construe his application for a c ertificate of appealability as an application for a certificate of probable cause. -2- (1991) (holding that a second or subsequent writ is subject to dismissal unless petitioner shows cause for the failure to assert cl aims in first petition and prejudice resulting from the claimed errors, or a f undamental miscarriage of justice). Before petitioner can proceed on appeal, he must se cure a certificate of probable cause from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2253. 1 Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that t he petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. We, therefore, DENY the application for a certificate of probable cause, and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner’s motion for re lease pending appeal is-3-

DENIED as moot. All other pending motions are DENI ED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
U. S. Election Assistance Commission 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC. 20005

May 25, 2010 

Ms. Sue L. McKay 

Director of Certification 

Election Systems and Software (ES&S) Sent via e-mail

11208 John Galt Boulevard 

Omaha, NE 68137 

Re: Agency Decision – De Minimis Changes

Dear Ms. McKay, 

As required under §3.5 of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program 

Manual (Program Manual), Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and iBeta Quality 

Assurance have provided the necessary documentation for the Unity 3.2.0.0. voting system 

verifying that the following changes are de minimis and do not require any additional 

testing: 

1. ECO 000315 

2. ECO 000339 

3. ECO 000342 

4. ECO 000366 

5. ECO 000375 

6. ECO 000423 

7. ECO 000466 

8. ECO 000523 

9. ECO 000529 

10. ECO 000534 

11. ECO 000535 

12. ECO 000545 

13. ECO 000554 

14. ECO 000562 

15. ECO 000566 

16. ECO 000570 

17. ECO 000576 

18. ECO 000582 

19. ECO 000618 

20. ECO 836 

21. ECO 839 

22. ECO 845 

23. ECO 851 

24. ECO 000337 

Based on the review of the documentation and recommendations provided by iBeta on 

February 1, 2010 EAC has determined that the changes are so minor in nature and effect 

that they do not require additional testing, EAC therefore approves the changes as de 

minimis. Per section 3.5.3. of EAC’s Program Manual ES&S is permitted to implement 

the proposed changes to the EAC certified Unity 3.2.0.0. voting system. 
EAC requests that ES&S please provide a matrix of the changes approved above. This 

matrix will be posted to EAC’s website so all stakeholders are made aware of the nature of 

the approved changes. This matrix should include the engineering change number and a 

short but detailed description of the change such that a third party can understand the 

change being implemented. When writing the description please keep in mind Chapter 10 

of the Program Manual regarding the release of proprietary information. This letter 

approving the changes will be posted to the EAC website upon receipt of the matrix 

describing the changes. 

If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact 

Brian Hancock or Matthew Masterson at your earliest convenience. 

Sincerely, 

 05/25/10 

Brian Hancock Date 

Director of Voting System Testing and Certification 

Cc: Carolyn Coggins, iBeta Quality Assurance
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-200-018]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on Marcy 3, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, copies of the following revised tariff sheets to 
be effective March 1, 1997:

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 7
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7B
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7C
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7D

    NGT states that these tariff sheets are filed herewith to reflect 
specific negotiated rate transactions for the month of March, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protest the said filing should file a 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All 
such 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 protestant parties to be proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6117 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Tammy L. BANKS Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1648

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 12, 2018

Filed: March 5, 2018

Jennifer-Donovan, Central Iowa Regional Office, Des Moines, IA, Joel E. Fenton, Law Office of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, IA, Thomas A. Krause, Schott Mauss & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Elvi D. Jenkins, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Stephanie Johnson Wright, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and. BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tammy L. Banks appeals from a District Court1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree that the denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Bryant v. Colvin, 861 F.3d 779, 782 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). Specifically, we find no support in the record for Banks’s contentions that her back impairment met or equaled the criteria for Listings 1.04(A) and 1.04(C). Banks did not show that her impairments met all of the criteria for these listings. See McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 2013) (“The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that [her] impairment matches all the specified criteria of a listing.”); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 1.04(A), (C). Further, Banks did not show that her back impairment or combined impairments equaled these listings. See KKC v. Colvin, 818 F.3d 364, 370 (8th Cir. 2016) (“To prove that an impairment or combination of impairments equals a listing, a claimant ‘must present medical findings equal in severity to *all*the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment.’ ” (citation to quoted case omitted)). As to the failure of the administrative law judge (ALJ) to ob*529tain documentation of a postoperative visit purportedly scheduled for the day after the administrative hearing, Banks has not established unfairness or prejudice. See Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (declining to remand for failure to develop the record where the alleged failure was not shown to be prejudicial); Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 749-50 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n ALJ is permitted to issue a decision without obtaining additional medical evidence so long as other evidence in the record provides a sufficient basis for the ALJ’s decision.” (citations to quoted cases omitted)).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
<Page>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 32f

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG
Power LLC.

                                    /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                    PSEG Power LLC
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    February 28, 2005
# Certification of the
Chief Executive Officer and Vice President  Finance

Solely for the purpose of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President 
Finance of Northland Cranberries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on
our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended November 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|/s/ John Swendrowski | /s/ Nigel J. Cooper
|-------------------- | -------------------
|John Swendrowski     | Nigel J. Cooper    
|January 14, 2005     | January 14, 2005
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |  |
| /S/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 4, 2011 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 4, 2011 |   |
# C_2022084EN.01004601.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/46

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-1/22)

(2022/C 84/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China;

| — | order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, (1) the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

---