alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013260EN.01002103.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2013 — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v Corinna Silber

(Case C-310/13)

2013/C 260/37

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH

Defendant and appellant on a point of law:

Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Corinna Silber

Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, as a ‘special liability system’, the German system of liability for pharmaceutical products is in general not affected by that directive, with the result that the national system of liability for pharmaceutical products may be further developed, or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that no extension is permitted to the situations covered by the liability system for pharmaceutical products existing at the point in time at which the directive was notified (30 July 1985)?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).

1

---
No. 09-1505.

#### Richard John Florance, Jr., Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 164,

178 L. Ed. 2d 40,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5916.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16150]

[[Page 33360]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 13-23 July 1998.
    Time of Meeting: 0800-1700.
    Place: Arnold & Mabel Beckman Center--Irvine, CA.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Summer Study panels on 
``Prioritizing Army Space Needs'' and ``Concepts and Technology of 
the Army Beyond 2010'' will meet for the purpose of discussion, 
report writing, and finalizing briefings for their respective 
sponsors. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance 
with Section 552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph 
(4) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The 
classified and unclassified matters to be discussed are so 
inextricably intertwined so as to preclude opening any portion of 
these meetings. For further information, please contact our office 
at (703) 604-7490.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 98-16150 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Lugo, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 493]

Judgment, Supreme

Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J.), rendered June 2, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.
# L_2010152EN.01000301.xml

| 18.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 152/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 152/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 523/2010

of 17 June 2010

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 15 June 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 June 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 June 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
Exhibit 99.1

Certification  Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002
(Subsections  (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)
Pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned  officers  of  Gristede's  Foods,  Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge,  that:

The  Annual  Report  of Form 10-K for the year ended December 1, 2002 (the "Form
10-K")  of  the  Company  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section

13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in  the  Form  10-K  fairly  presents,  in  all material respects, the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the  Company.

Dated:   March 4, 2003
/s/ John A. Catsimatidis
Name:  John A. Catsimatidis
Chief  Executive Officer

Dated:  March 4, 2003
/s/  Gary Pokrassa
Name: Gary Pokrassa
Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63  of  Title 18, United States Code) and is not being furnished as part of Form
10-K  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.


<PAGE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 19, 2016

NO. 03-15-00496-CV

Steven C. Albright and Rhonda Albright, Appellants

v.

Rhea & Sons Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Rhea Plumbing, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 20, 2015. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order granting summary 

judgment as to the Albright’s negligence claims against Rhea and remands for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the order in all other respects. Each party 

shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Trimble, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 887]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered December 10, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry of a juror who requested a leave of absence in order to attend the funeral of his brother-in-law’s mother is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant admittedly never requested such an inquiry *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hicks,*6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; *People v Mebane,*70 AD3d 724, 724-725 [2010]; *People v Morales,*36 AD3d 631, 632 [2007]). In any event, the contention is without merit (see *People v Argendorf,*76 AD3d 1100 [2010]; *People v Morales,*36 AD3d at 632).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*
      *127390 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

  
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Forms
S-8 No. 333-36933 and S-8 No. 333-61717 pertaining to the Specialty Care
Network, Inc. 1996 Equity Compensation Plan of our report dated March 26, 1999,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Specialty
Care Network, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Specialty Care Network, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                       ---------------------
                                       Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 6, 1999
Exhibit
15.14







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-1 (Registration No. 333-194519) and in the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-172122) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509,
No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. of our auditors report dated [March 31, 2016],
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Elbit Imaging Ltd. as of December 31, 2015.



The
consolidated financial statements of Elbit Imaging Ltd. as of December 31, 2015, expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's financial position as of December 31,2015, information regarding the cash flow
projections of the significant subsidiary for 18 month from the end of December 31, 2015, potential irregularities concerning
the Casa radio Project in Romania and their potential consequences as of December 31, 2015, including Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act potential implications and claims that have been filed against Group companies as of December 31, 2015, one of which was certified
as class action, appearing in this report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd., as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|/s/
    Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.         | 
|--------------------------------------------- | 
|Brightman
    Almagor Zohar & Co.             | 
|Certified
    Public Accountants              | 
|A
    member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu | 
|                                              | 
|Tel-Aviv,
    Israel                          | 
|November
    9, 2017                          |
#### 309 Fifth Owners LLC, Appellant, v MEPT 309 Fifth Avenue LLC, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 694]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 23, 2016, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 2016, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the judgment vacated, and the motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action denied.

The parties’ contract provides that a certain payment from defendant to plaintiff shall be computed based on “Appraised Value,” which means “[t]he gross appraised value of the Property as determined by the most recent appraisal prepared on behalf of Purchaser [i.e., defendant] in the ordinary course of Purchaser’s business and accepted by Purchaser as final for purposes of Purchaser’s portfolio valuation.” The materials submitted by defendant did not “resolve [ ] all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively dispose] ] of the plaintiff’s claim” *(Fortis Fin. Servs. v Fimat Futures USA,*290 AD2d 383, 383 [1st Dept 2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). On the contrary, the documents submitted by defendant showed that the appraisals were *not*prepared on behalf of Purchaser; instead, they were prepared for nonparty NewTower Trust Company as Trustee of nonparty Multi-Employer Property Trust. Similarly, defendant’s documents showed that the appraisals were not accepted by it; rather, they were accepted by NewTower on behalf of the Trust. The affidavit submitted by defendant, which does not constitute documentary evidence *(see e.g. Regini v Board of Mgrs. of Loft Space Condominium,*107 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2013]), but which can be used to help plaintiff *(see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 635-636 [1976]), shows that the Trust is not the same as defendant. It says defendant is a subsidiary of nonparty MEPT Edgemoor LP, which in turn is a subsidiary of the Trust.

Since plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is being reinstated, we need not address its arguments about the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and leave to replead.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
NO. 06

- 15 -00079- CV

IN THE

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

JAVIER JAIMES

APPELLANT

V.

ZENAW MERSHA

APPELLEE

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

TRAVIS COUNTY

, TEXAS, HON. TODD T. WONG, PRESIDING

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

______________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Please take notice that Clark Richards with the law firm of Richards

Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP has agreed to represent Javier Jaimes in this appeal

through the Third Court of Appeals in Austin Pro Bono Program. Clark Richards’

information is as follows: ACCEPTED

06-15-00079-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/22/2015 9:49:40 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK2 Cl ark Richards

State Bar No. 90001613

crichards@rrsfirm.com

Richards Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP

816 Congress Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel (512) 476

- 0005

Fax (512) 476

- 1513

Appellant asks the Court to ins truct the clerk to change the records to reflect

that Clark Richards i s counsel for Appellant in this case on appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________ Clark Richards

State Bar No. 90001613

crichards@rrsfirm.com

Richards Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP

816 Congress Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel (512) 476

- 0005

Fax (512) 476

- 1513

ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLANT3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been delivered to the

following counsel of record on this 22 nd day of December 2015 by fax and e

- mail:

David Sadegh

The Law Office of David J. Sadegh

10203 Birchridge Drive, Suite 21 0

Humble, Texas 77338

Fax 832

- 644

- 6236

djsadegh@sadeghlaw.com

_________________________________ CLARK RICHARDS
No. 09-1516.

#### In re Guy Heide, Michael A. Kosel, and Duane Taylor, Petitioners.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 179,

178 L. Ed. 2d 259,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7738.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 10-6184.

#### Steven A. DeLoge, Petitioner v. Wyoming.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 482,

178 L. Ed. 2d 305,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8028.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied.

Same case below, 231 P.3d 862.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15878]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Relocation of the Dockets Management Branch

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
relocation and partial closing of the Dockets Management Branch (DMB). 
During this relocation process, it is necessary to partially close DMB 
to allow the staff to set up the new offices. This relocation will 
permit more efficient utilization of work and document storage space. 
The purpose of this document is to inform the public in advance to 
avoid confusion in carrying out DMB's functions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennie C. Butler, Dockets Management 
Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-7542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 1998, DMB will move from its 
current location at 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, 
to a new location at 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857. 
Therefore, from June 19 to 22, 1998, DMB will be partially closed. 
During this time, the public reading room will be open from 9 a.m. to 4 
p.m., normal business hours, to accept hand-delivered documents, but 
will not provide other services.
    Anyone wishing to hand deliver documents to DMB on June 19, 1998, 
should go to 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, and 
anyone wishing to hand deliver documents to DMB on June 22, 1998, 
should go to 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. Normal 
operations of DMB will resume on June 23, 1998, at the new location, 
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857. Also starting on June 
23, 1998, the new phone number for DMB will be 301-827-6860.
    DMB, which is part of the Office of Management and Systems, is 
responsible for many activities under 21 CFR 10.20. The major functions 
of DMB include: (1) Serving as the entry point for citizen petitions, 
comments, hearing requests, and other documents related to FDA's 
rulemaking and administrative activities; (2) maintaining a public 
reading room where documents are available for public inspection; (3) 
providing copies of official records maintained in accordance with the 
Freedom of Information Act; and (4) providing advice and guidance 
regarding filing requirements pertaining to FDA's rulemaking or 
administrative activities.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-15878 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
# 2022 DLA Hall of Fame inductee: Benjamin “Gil” Perkins

/ Published Aug. 15, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s Note: This is one of six stories featuring 2022 DLA Hall of Fame inductees. A ceremony highlighting their contributions to the agency will be held Aug. 17 at the McNamara Headquarters Complex.*

A lawyer who represented the Defense Logistics Agency in protests before the Government Accountability Office is a member of the 2022 DLA Hall of Fame. 

Benjamin “Gil” Perkins began his 34-year federal career in 1981 as a part-time law clerk in the Office of Council at Defense General Supply Center in Richmond. In 2006, he became the primary acquisition law adviser for DLA Aviation, where he led a staff of 21 attorneys and five legal support representatives. He oversaw legal advice and representation in areas ranging from government contracts and ethics to personnel and environmental law.

The transfer of acquisition functions from the military services to DLA, a change mandated by 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decisions, led to new DLA Aviation satellite sites throughout the country. Perkins ensured seamless legal support for the new mission by doubling his staff and placing attorneys at five additional locations. 

He also guided the creation of a case-management database that became the model for the Automated Workflow and Reporting System used by DLA Counsel offices agency-wide. 

Improving organizational performance and climate was a theme throughout Perkins’ career. According to his nomination, he was at the forefront of DLA’s first efforts to enhance the agency’s culture. He helped develop the Executive Leadership Development Program that all DLA supervisors and managers complete as part of their education. 

“Throughout Mr. Perkins’ long and exemplary career at DLA Aviation, he has earned the respect and gratitude of DLA employees at all levels of the organization,” according to his nomination. “He is a valuable, trustworthy and dedicated attorney, leader, colleague and civil servant.”
No. 10-5193.

#### In re Nathan Andrew Bryant, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 256,

178 L. Ed. 2d 260,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7834.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott E. Willkomm, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

/s/ Scott E. Willkomm

Scott E. Willkomm
President
August 9, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.