alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022368EN.01001701.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2022 — Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon

(Case C-453/22)

(2022/C 368/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Schütte

Defendant: Finanzamt Brilon

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, do the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (1)– in particular the principle of fiscal neutrality and the principle of effectiveness — require that the applicant has a right to claim reimbursement of the value added tax overpaid by him or her to his or her upstream suppliers, including interest, directly from the tax authorities, even though there is still a possibility that the upstream suppliers will at a later point in time take action against the tax authorities on the basis of a correction of the invoices, and the tax authorities may then — possibly — no longer have a right of recourse against the applicant, with the result that there is a risk that those authorities will have to reimburse the same value added tax twice?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10(a)(3)


                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                     QUAKER LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN OF 1990
           (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1996)

         WHEREAS, The Quaker Long Term Incentive Plan of 1990, as amended and
restated effective as of September 1, 1996 (the "Plan"), was established by The
Quaker Oats Company (the "Company") for the benefit of its eligible employees;
and

         WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is desirable to eliminate the
cancellation and payment of cash in connection with any change in control
transaction which would preclude pooling of interests accounting, if such
treatment would otherwise apply to the transaction, but otherwise retain the
full effect and benefit of the plan provisions, including the elimination of
further service requirements as a condition of the options or restricted stock;

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority delegated to the undersigned
by resolution of the Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as of the
21st day of November, 2000, by adding a new paragraph 9.1(h) immediately
following paragraph 9.1(g) as follows:

         (h) Pooling of Interests. Notwithstanding any other provision of the
         Plan, Options outstanding on the date of a Change in Control which is
         intended to qualify as a pooling of interests transaction, which would
         otherwise be cancelled and cashed out in accordance with paragraph (a)
         above, after application of the limitations set forth in paragraph (g)
         above, shall not be subject to any additional service requirement as a
         condition of exercise but shall not otherwise be subject to the
         provisions of such paragraph (a), and the Restricted Period with
         respect to Restricted Stock, which would otherwise be cancelled and
         cashed out in accordance with paragraph (c) above, after application of
         the limitations of paragraph (g) above, shall lapse on the date of any
         such Change in Control but such Restricted Stock shall not otherwise be
         subject to the provisions of such paragraph (c).

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed below by a duly
authorized officer of the Company.


                                                The Quaker Oats Company

                                                By:  /s/ Robert S. Morrison
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                Its: Chairman, President, and
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     ---------------------------
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                  LILLIAN VERNON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE ASSUMING PRIMARY AND FULL DILUTION
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                SECOND QUARTER ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                --------------------- ---------------------
                                                AUGUST 23, AUGUST 24, AUGUST 23, AUGUST 24,
                                                   1997      1996        1997      1996
                                                 --------   -------    -------   --------
<S>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>     
Net loss                                           ($383)   ($2,096)   ($2,728)   ($5,726)
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------

Primary Shares:

          Average number of shares outstanding     9,599      9,727      9,605      9,672
          Assumed exercise of stock options          142          2         86         12
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------
                                                   9,741      9,729      9,691      9,684
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------


Loss Per Share Assuming Primary Dilution           ($.04)     ($.22)     ($.28)     ($.59)
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------



Fully Diluted Shares:

          Average number of shares outstanding     9,599      9,727      9,605      9,672
          Assumed exercise of stock options          147          2        145         12
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------
                                                   9,746      9,729      9,750      9,684
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------


Loss  Per Share Assuming Full Dilution             ($.04)     ($.22)     ($.28)     ($.59)
                                                 -------    -------    -------    -------
</TABLE>

                                 Page 12 of 12
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Michael L. Jeub, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Immune Response Corporation;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date August 19, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Michael L. Jeub                                                           |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Michael L. Jeub

Vice President of Finance and

 Chief Financial Officer |
**Exhibit 31.02**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Benjamin G.S. Fowke III, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K of Public Service Company of Colorado;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)         designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)        evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)         disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):

a)         all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data;and

b)        any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|                               | /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE III                |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                          | Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                    |
|                          | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          |                                       |
| Date: February  26, 2007 |                                       |

 

----
# C_2022463EN.01005001.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/50

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID

(Case T-54/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID). |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Rivière v Parliament and ID (T-54/22, not published, EU:T:2022:472). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Rivière v Parliament and ID (T-54/22, not published, EU:T:2022:472).

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6354]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Anti-Personnel Landmine 
Alternatives, Landmine Detection and Demining, and Unexploded Ordnance 
(UXO) Clearance Operations

AGENCY: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

ACTION: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Anti-Personnel Landmine 
Alternatives, Landmine Detection and Demining, and Unexploded Ordnance 
(UXO) Clearance Operations, Phase I will meet in closed session on 
March 26-27 and April 23-24, 1997 at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will examine US landmine, landmine detection and demining 
efforts, and alternatives to anti-personnel landmines. It will also 
examine UXO remediation, active range UXO clearance, and explosive 
ordnance disposal (EOD) efforts. It will include in this examination, 
the relationship between the UXO/EOD detection/characterization/
clearance and neutralization issues and landmine detection/
neutralization issues. In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, 
(1994)), it has been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings 
concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(c)(1) (1994), and that 
accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-6354 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8841 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require that certain 

issuers make disclosures regarding general ledger accounts reconciliation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2020 

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself and Mr. SWALWELL of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

that certain issuers make disclosures regarding general 

ledger accounts reconciliation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internal Control Dis5 closure Improvement Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS RECONCILIATION. 

7 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

8 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8841 IH

1 ‘‘(s) GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS RECONCILI2 ATION.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each covered issuer re4 quired to file an annual or quarterly report under 

5 subsection (a) shall disclose in that report whether 

6 such covered issuer has, at the time of such report, 

7 completed a general ledger accounts reconciliation 

8 for the most recent fiscal quarter and most recent 

9 fiscal year, respectively. 

10 ‘‘(2) COVERED ISSUER DEFINED.—For pur11 poses of this subsection, the term ‘covered issuer’ 

12 means an issuer with respect to which a civil or 

13 criminal penalty has been imposed under the securi14 ties laws by reason of the internal control over fi15 nancial reporting of such issuer related to the failure 

16 of such issuer to reconcile general ledger accounts.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# C_2022244EN.01004001.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/40

---

Action brought on 2 May 2022 — Lacapelle v Parliament

(Case T-240/22)

(2022/C 244/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Lin Lacapelle (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision D-301937 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Jean-Lin Lacapelle from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision D-301937 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Jean-Lin Lacapelle from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024);

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-196/22, Mariani v Parliament.

---
#### Leroy MCFADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35666

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 9, 2018 * Seattle, Washington

Filed February 22, 2018

Laurie Wallace, Attorney, Bothe <& Lau-ridsen, P.C., Columbia Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, David Burdett, Special Assistant U.S. At*626torney, Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: M. SMITH and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Leroy McFadden appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment and affirmance of Acting Commissioner Berryhill’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s order *de novo. Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). “An ALJ’s disability determination should be upheld unless it contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” *Garrison v. Colvin,*759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). Legal errors are harmless if they do not alter the ALJ’s final disability determination. *Molina,*674 F.3d at 1115.

The ALJ improperly discounted the medical opinion of McFadden’s treating physician, Dr. Vanichkachorn, leading the ALJ to miscalculate McFadden’s RFC. However, this error is harmless. The vocational expert testified at Step 5 of the disability evaluation that even accounting for the additional limitations suggested by Dr. Vanichkachorn, work exists in the national economy that McFadden could perform. Therefore, the ALJ’s errors did not change the ultimate non-disability determination. The ALJ did not otherwise err in his findings and determinations.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1772

IANKA DEMIREVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 3109-AMD) Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ianka Demireva, Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Frenkil, Kathryn Mary Widmayer, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ianka Demireva appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment to The Johns Hopkins University in Demireva’s civil action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. See Demireva v. Johns Hopkins Univ. , No. CA-04-3109- AMD (D. Md. June 6, 2005). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, the opinion from the bench, and the parties’ briefs on appeal, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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. AFFIRMED