alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013325EN.01001401.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy

(Case C-442/13)

2013/C 325/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sarah Nagy

Applicant:

Defendant: Marcel Nagy

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are two proceedings brought ‘between the same parties’, within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) where in one set of proceedings the child makes a claim against the father for past and current maintenance, and the father, in divorce proceedings, seeks a determination of his maintenance obligation relating to that child and of payments to be made to the mother after the divorce? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are two proceedings brought ‘between the same parties’, within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) where in one set of proceedings the child makes a claim against the father for past and current maintenance, and the father, in divorce proceedings, seeks a determination of his maintenance obligation relating to that child and of payments to be made to the mother after the divorce?

1

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Where, in one set of proceedings, the maintenance creditor makes a claim for current maintenance and, in another set of proceedings, the maintenance debtor seeks to have his obligation to pay current maintenance postponed to a later date, will the proceedings then involve ‘the same cause of action’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the regulation, from the later date? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Where, in one set of proceedings, the maintenance creditor makes a claim for current maintenance and, in another set of proceedings, the maintenance debtor seeks to have his obligation to pay current maintenance postponed to a later date, will the proceedings then involve ‘the same cause of action’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the regulation, from the later date?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 7, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       527,398,113
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             527,398,113
<CASH>                                      31,475,648
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       2,908,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             861,715,422
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            367,673,507
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       160,467
<OTHER-SE>                                 219,563,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               861,715,422
<PREMIUMS>                                      32,373
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          9,765,138
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (127,657)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 449,572
<BENEFITS>                                   5,275,603
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     70,668
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         1,043,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,090,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                    59,627
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,030,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,030,652
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
# AMC deputy commanding general visits Anniston distribution center

/ Published Jan. 14, 2016
ANNISTON, Alabama,
LETTER TO THE COMMISSION

April 11, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission

DynCorp received a representation letter dated April 11, 2002, from Arthur
Andersen LLP indicating that they have audited the consolidated financial
statements of DynCorp and its subsidiaries as of December 27, 2001 and for the
year then ended and have issued their report thereon dated February 15, 2002.
Arthur Andersen represents that the audit was subject to their quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel
working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not
relevant to this audit.


                                                /S/ J. J. Fitzgerald
                                                --------------------

                                                April 11, 2002
#  DLA Information Operations plays key role in access for employees with disabilities

/ Published Oct. 8, 2015
Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

## JUN 18 1g97

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FEDERAL RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE

On May 2, 1997, the Department ofEnergy (Department) published aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing, and Request forPublic Comment forthe Federal Residential Energy Efficiency Code (62 Fed. Reg. 24164). The Department held apublic hearing on the proposed rule on May 5, 1997. During the course ofthe public hearing it was asked whetherthe Technical Support Document (TSD), which is labeled “draft,” is still undergoing changes. The TSD is the technical basis forthe proposed rule as published. However, based on the Department’s review ofcomments received on the proposed rule, we mayupdate the TSD forthe final rule. Ifyou have any questions concerning the TSD, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen P. Walder at (202) 586-9209. Sincerely, /

Michael J. McCabe Director 

## / Office ofCodes and Standards

, Office ofBuilding Technologies, State and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2355 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 590
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2355

                          [Report No. 103-348]

  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

   Mr. Lott introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

              August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994

              Reported by Mr. Hollings, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
EMPRESS, United States official number 975018.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 590

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2355

                          [Report No. 103-348]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS.

_______________________________________________________________________

              August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
# DLA takes responsibility for Air Force’s Hazardous Material Management System

/ Published Oct. 19, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


I, Michael Martin, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GPS Industries, Inc.;

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

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


Date:  December 1, 2005             /s/ Michael Martin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Michael Martin
                                        Chief Accounting Officer
No. 09-11335.

#### Steven Williams, Petitioner v. Lt. Howard, et al.

562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 181,

178 L. Ed. 2d 108,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6930.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Richard Durante, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Alicia Durante, an Infant, Appellant, v Kenmore-Tonawanda Union Free School District, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 812]

*1442Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered September 16, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by his seven-year-old daughter when she tripped and fell while ascending the stairs leading into her elementary school. Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion (see *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Plaintiffs daughter fell as she attempted to step onto the top stair, and photographs submitted by plaintiff establish that there is a height differential between the riser of the second stair from the top and the riser on the top stair. Plaintiff, a carpenter with 22 years of experience in construction, submitted an affidavit stating that the height differential resulted from the fact that the concrete stairs had settled over time. Plaintiff further stated that the riser of the lower stair measured 5Vs inches and the riser of the top stair measured 71⁄4 inches, a difference of 21⁄8 inches. “Whether a particular height differential between [stairs] constitutes a dangerous or defective condition depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury” *(Tesak v Marine Midland Bank,*254 AD2d 717, 717-718 [1998]). “[T]here is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” *(Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 977 [1997]). “Whether a particular *condition gives rise to*liability for negligent maintenance is generally an issue of fact for the jury” *(Tesak,*254 AD2d at 718; *cf. Smolen v Kmart, Inc.*[appeal No. 2], 2 AD3d 1438 [2003]). We therefore reverse the order, deny defendant’s motion and reinstate the complaint. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
#### Katherine N. Deason, a widow, *Appellant,*v. Eva Deitz, by and through her husband and next friend, Emanuel Deitz and Abe Kurman, *Appellees.*

145 So. 186.

Division B.

Opinion filed December 29, 1932.

*Ruff & Beady,*for Appellant;

*Moms & Myers,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order overruling a demurrer to an amended cross bill. The principal suit was for foreclosure of a mortgage. The complainants seeking foreclosure sued as assignees of the mortgage and as endorsee for value before maturity of the two negotiable promissory notes the mortgage was given to secure.

The amended cross bill was insufficient to show that, even if the allegations thereof were otherwise good as setting up a cause of action warranting rescission against the original mortgagee and holder of the note, that the complainants in this case, as assignees and endorsees of the mortgage and notes, did not take the same free from all the alleged equities and defenses which the mortgagor could have set up against the mortgage before its assignment.

The decree appealed from should be affirmed on the authority of Pensacola State Bank v. McClure, 67 Fla. 289, 64 Sou. Rep. 1022; McClure v. American National Bank, 67 Fla. 32, 64 Sou. Rep. 427, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Ellis, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.

Piled under Rule 21 A.
#### In the Matter of Dwayne A. Annette D., Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 426]

In an adoption proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Sail, S.), dated November 30, 2015, which denied her motion to amend an order of adoption nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied her motion to amend an order of adoption nunc pro tunc *(see generally*CPLR 2001, 5015, 5019). As the court determined, the record does not support the appellant’s contention that her former husband was mistakenly excluded from the order of adoption. Rather, the record supports the conclusion that her former husband’s name was crossed off the application for adoption during the course of divorce proceedings, wherein both the appellant and her former husband expressed the intention that the appellant alone would adopt the child as a single parent.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
# C_2013252EN.01002103.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/21

---

Action brought on 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-339/13)

2013/C 252/34

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC; (1)

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Article 5 of Directive 1999/74/EC expired on 10 January 2012.

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53).

1

---
No. 10-5967.

#### Jerald Alan Hammann, Petitioner v. Falls/Pinnacle, LLC, et al.; and Jerald Alan Hammann, Petitioner v. Donald Deyo, et al.

562 U.S. 980, 131 S. Ct. 443,

178 L. Ed. 2d 320,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8146.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner allowed until November 8, 2010, within which to pay the dock*321eting fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Perkins, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 912]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (three counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (five counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the convictions of burglary in the second degree, three concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3V2 to 7 years on the convictions of criminal possession of stolen property, five concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the convictions of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and four concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the convictions of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, to run concurrently with the consecutive terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the convictions of burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that all the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the counts in the instant indictment were directly derived from a previously-filed felony *541complaint for the purpose of applying the six-month speedy trial limitation prescribed by CPL 30.30 (1) (a) is without merit *(see People v Sinistaj,*67 NY2d 236 [1986]; *People v Osgood,*52 NY2d 37 [1980]; *People v Schaffer,*200 AD2d 695 [1994]; *People v Murray,*127 AD2d 704 [1987]; *cf. People v Chetrick,*255 AD2d 392 [1998]).

The sentences are excessive to the extent indicated herein.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05) or without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. D-2498.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Terrance N. Toner.

562 U.S. 808, 131 S. Ct. 397,

178 L. Ed. 2d 263,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7517.

October 4, 2010.

Terrance N. Toner, of New Brunswick, New Jersey, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# DLA, HHS deliver rapid-result COVID-19 test kits across the nation

/ Published Oct. 7, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency supplied over 11 million rapid COVID-19 test kits that provide on-site results within 15 minutes to thousands of sites nationwide by Oct. 2.

The deliveries are part of a contract awarded Aug. 28 for 150 million tests on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services and are expected to continue through December.

“Our DLA Troop Support Medical team, partnering with HHS and the vendor, are hard at work ensuring we get these tests where they’re needed, when they’re needed,” said DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Gavin Lawrence.

HHS requested that DLA procure the tests for potential distribution to schools and “special needs populations,” according to an Aug. 27 HHS press release. The tests don’t require lab equipment and can be used by workers with a Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment waiver.

HHS identifies, prioritizes and communicates delivery locations to state entities, schools, nursing homes, and other federal partners such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. DLA Troop Support is coordinating with HHS and the vendor daily, said Daniel Keefe, DLA Troop Support’s director of medical supplier operations.

“This has been one of several missions where Medical has had the chance to work closely with HHS, and our ability to work together to get products shipped a day after sites are identified has been incredible,” he said.