alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013108EN.01004001.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/40

---

Action brought on 5 February 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-12/13)

2013/C 108/94

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s claim of harassment.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should

| — | Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 May 2012, rejecting her complaint to the Advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace and concluding that she was not harassed by her former Head of Unit; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 May 2012, rejecting her complaint to the Advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace and concluding that she was not harassed by her former Head of Unit;

| — | annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged on 6 August 2012 pursuant to Article 90(2) SR; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged on 6 August 2012 pursuant to Article 90(2) SR;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
# Employee Spotlight: Randy Morningstar

/ Published May 30, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** Randy Morningstar

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of service:** 17 years

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?**I work as a supply technician and my primary duties are conducting and coordinating physical inventories across all the shop service centers on the base.

**What do you like most about your job and why?** My job provides me the unique opportunity to visit all of the DLA Aviation locations on Tinker Air Force Base daily. This keeps the job fresh and gives me the chance to interact with coworkers and in a variety of different work settings.

**What are your best practices for achieving goals or accomplishing tasks?** I always keep everything bite-sized and realistic while working towards something bigger because the detail in every small success contributes to achieving what you’re aiming for as the ultimate goal. Luke Skywalker didn’t become a Jedi in a day. 

**Professionally, where do you see yourself five years from now?** In five years, I will still be showing up early every day and giving 110% to my team at DLA Aviation.

**What is your proudest accomplishment and why?**I am proud of becoming a homeowner! It’s been an adventure and quite the learning experience in home improvement. But I am really pleased with what I’ve done so far and how my home is turning out.

**What’s the most thrilling/adventurous thing you have ever done? The most thrilling thing I’ve ever done was**skydiving. What I signed up for didn’t quite sink in until I was at the skydiving school waiting for my turn to jump, but I saw it through.

**What are your passions outside of work?** When I’m not working, I’m eyeing the next upgrade for my computers, watching something from my vast movie library, or playing the latest video game. I live the nerd dream and make no apologies for it.

**What is your favorite military aircraft?****Why?** The Air Force YF-23 Black Widow is by-far the coolest looking jet ever. It looks like an aircraft that would be featured in a science fiction movie!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LINDA RAGIN,

Petitioner

v.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 339 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

LINDA RAGIN,

Petitioner

v.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 340 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2013274EN.01001401.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 16 July 2013 — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-403/13)

2013/C 274/24

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lisa Kelly

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Where an employee resident in Member State A and who has been in insurable employment in that State for just short of three years spends the last six months of her insurable employment in Member State B, should that person’s subsequent claim for social security payments on account of illness be governed by (i) the law of Member State B for the purposes of Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation 883/2004/EC (1)? or, (ii) by the law of the Member State A where she is resident for the purposes of Article 11(3)(e)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where an employee resident in Member State A and who has been in insurable employment in that State for just short of three years spends the last six months of her insurable employment in Member State B, should that person’s subsequent claim for social security payments on account of illness be governed by (i) the law of Member State B for the purposes of Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation 883/2004/EC (1)? or, (ii) by the law of the Member State A where she is resident for the purposes of Article 11(3)(e)?

1

| 2. | Is it relevant to a consideration of Question 1 that if the law of Member State B is held to be the governing law, then the employee in question is ineligible for any social security payments, whereas this would not be the case if the law of the Member State where she is resident (Member State A) were held to apply?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to a consideration of Question 1 that if the law of Member State B is held to be the governing law, then the employee in question is ineligible for any social security payments, whereas this would not be the case if the law of the Member State where she is resident (Member State A) were held to apply?’

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems

1

OJ L 166, p. 1

---
#### Quishpi v 80 WEA Owner, LLC

App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 66397(U)

denied
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATE

I, Malinda G. Passmore, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2015 of KMG Chemicals, Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: December 15, 2015 |   | /s/ Malinda G. Passmore                    |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Malinda G. Passmore                        |
|                         |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1598]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


The National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID) of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Announces the Following 
Workshop

    Name: Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases II: Entering the 21st 
Century.
    Times and Dates: 10:30 a.m.-5:45 p.m., January 22, 1998; 8:30 a.m.-
3 p.m., January 23, 1998.
    Place: CDC, Auditorium A, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the proposed 
update to the CDC Plan, ``Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases 
Threats: A Prevention Strategy for the United States.''
    Matters To Be Discussed: The Workshop will consist of a revision 
and up-dating of goals, directions, prevention, and control strategies 
of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases of the 21st Century. 
The agenda will include an NCID update; an overview of CDC Emerging 
Infections Plan 1998-2003; discussion; charge to the workgroups on (a) 
surveillance and response, (b) applied research, (c) prevention and 
control, and (d) infrastructure; a review of the workgroup progress; 
and reports.
    The working groups will consist of representatives from national 
and international organizations, and State and Federal representatives.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Written comments are welcome and should be received by the contact 
person listed below prior to the opening of the meeting.
    Contact Person for More Information: Diane S. Holley, Office of the 
Director, NCID, CDC, M/S C-20, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333, telephone 404/639-0078.

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 98-1598 Filed 1-20-98; 10:47 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### Edward M. Strasser et al., Appellants, v Prudential Securities Incorporated et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[769 NYS2d 247]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and, sua sponte, dismissed the action on grounds of abandonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the matter restored to the calendar and remanded for de novo consideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery.

This action was commenced in 1992, dismissed in its entirety on the merits in 1993, and, on appeal to this Court, the dismissal was upheld in 1995, except as to a fraud claim which was reinstated (218 AD2d 526 [1995]). Our decision was promptly filed with Supreme Court and stamped “remittitur, “ and the following month defendants answered the remaining claim. Thereafter, the action remained dormant for seven years until it was restored to the calendar in 2002 and plaintiffs served an extensive demand for discovery, to which defendants objected, and plaintiffs moved to compel.

The motion court erred in its sua sponte dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute where neither it nor defendant ever served the statutory 90-day demand for note of issue and resumption of prosecution upon pain of dismissal. CPLR 3216 (b) expressly and unequivocally precludes such dismissal “unless ... (3) [t]he court or party seeking [dismissal] . . . shall have served a written demand by registered or certified mail requiring the party against whom [dismissal] is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand, and further stating that the default by the party . . . served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed” *(see also Chase v Scavuzzo,*87 NY2d 228 [1995]; *Revell u New York Cares Org.,*307 AD2d 214 [2003]; *Bravo v Held,*303 AD2d 278 [2003]).

The authorities cited by defendants are distinguishable as arbitration cases, which are not within the purview of CPLR 3216, or as predating the current version of the statute. We *240have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rickey Sherron, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 736]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered March 27, 2001, convicting him of assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The majority of the defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s improper questions and comments pertaining to his right to remain silent are unpreserved for appellate review, since they were not objected to at the trial or were objected to on different grounds than those he argues on appeal *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; *People v Fabricio,*307 AD2d 882 [2003]). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the errors were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” *(People v Hichez,*240 AD2d 678, 679 [1997]).

The majority of the defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s remarks on summation are unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Campbell, 271*AD2d 693 [2000]; *People v Lamour,*203 AD2d 388 [1994]). In any event, they were proper responses to arguments made by the defense counsel during summation and were fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Campbell, supra; People v Lamour, supra).*Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Richard P.  McStravick,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Anthony J.
Fabiano,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Sound Federal
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the
Company that he has reviewed  the  Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the  quarterly  period  ended  December 31, 2005 and that to the best of his
knowledge:

         (1)      the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections
                  13(a) and 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sound  Federal  Bancorp,  Inc. and will be retained by Sound Federal
Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.


February 7, 2006                           /s/ Richard P. McStravick
---------------------                      -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


February 7, 2006                           /s/ Anthony J. Fabiano
---------------------                      -------------------------------------
Date                                       Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
#### People v Garcia (Frank)

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1090 (Dutchess)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenya Burgess, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 542]

Judgment, Supreme *551Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11453.

#### Michael Donnell Butts, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 881, 131 S. Ct. 202,

178 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6593.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 372.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3559-3560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2612-005]


Central Maine Power Company; Notice of Extension of Time

January 16, 1998.
    The Commission issued a Notice of Availability of a Draft 
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the above-docketed project on 
December 17, 1997

[[Page 3560]]

(62 FR 67070, December 23, 1997), with a comment period ending on 
January 16, 1998. On January 13, 1998, Central Maine Power Company 
(CMP) filed a motion requesting a 30-day extension of the review period 
because of unexpected emergency conditions CMP is presently 
experiencing due to unusually harsh weather.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of 
time for CMP and all interested parties to review the DEA is granted. 
Comments on the DEA shall be filed on or before February 17, 1998.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1585 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Jason Keith Richardson

, * From the 385th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CV50227

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00243

- CR * October 22, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Jason Keith Richardson’s pro se motion to

withdraw his appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted.

Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
No. 09-11554.

#### George Martin Vanden-Berg, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 887, 131 S. Ct. 219,

178 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6736.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Exhibit 23.  Consents of Experts and Counsel


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




The Board of Directors
Dravo Corporation:

We   consent   to  incorporation  by  reference  in  registration
statements  Nos. 33-23632, 2-84462, 2-64137, 33-54179, 333-01689,
333-01691  and 333-07537 on Form S-8, No. 33-17356 on  Form  S-3,
Amendment  No. 1 to No. 2-87555 on Form S-8/S-3, and No.  2-71993
on  Form  S-16 amended by Form S-3 of Dravo Corporation,  of  our
reports  dated  January  22, 1997 relating  to  the  consolidated
balance  sheets  of  Dravo Corporation  and  subsidiaries  as  of
December   31,   1996  and  1995  and  the  related  consolidated
statements of operations, retained earnings, and cash  flows  and
related  schedule for each of the years in the three-year  period
ended  December  31,  1996  which  reports  appear  in,  or   are
incorporated by reference in, the December 31, 1996 annual report
on  Form  10-K  of Dravo Corporation.  Our reports refer  to  the
adoption of the methods of accounting for postemployment benefits
prescribed  by  Statements of Financial Accounting Standards  No.
112.



                                      /s/  KPMG PEAT  MARWICK LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1997

                              23-1
# Farrington named Aviation Employee of the Month

/ Published Dec. 1, 2015
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s October Employee of the Month is Christopher Farrington. He serves as a project manager for the Industrial Plant Equipment Services Division of DLA Aviation’s Engineering Directorate in Richmond, Virginia. DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan Day presented the award to Farrington during a ceremony Nov. 25.

In his nominating remarks, David George, Customer Relations Branch chief, noted Farrington’s superior performance and teamwork. George stated Farrington supports IPESD’s most demanding and largest customer, Naval Sea Systems Command, managing $70 million worth of equipment. “His performance turned a stressed relationship into one of complete trust and transparency and his contributions to DLA Aviation are creating ripple effects at all levels,” said George.  

Farrington said he is very humbled by the nomination and winning the award. “It is very surprising, seeing how chances are low that my outstanding work would be recognized with the many other great things that so many other people do on this base,” he said.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Furnished 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 Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter M. Mischer, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Walter M. Mischer, Sr.Name:

Walter M. Mischer, Sr.Title:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 13, 2004




A signed original of this
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.