alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013274EN.01001402.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 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 16 July 2013 — R on the application of ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-404/13)

2013/C 274/25

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ClientEarth

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Where, under the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) (1) (‘the Directive’), in a given zone or agglomeration conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide was not achieved by the deadline of 1 January 2010 specified in annex XI of the Directive, is a Member State obliged pursuant to the Directive and/or article 4 TEU to seek postponement of the deadline in accordance with article 22 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where, under the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) (1) (‘the Directive’), in a given zone or agglomeration conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide was not achieved by the deadline of 1 January 2010 specified in annex XI of the Directive, is a Member State obliged pursuant to the Directive and/or article 4 TEU to seek postponement of the deadline in accordance with article 22 of the Directive?

1

| 2. | If so, in what circumstances (if any) may a Member State be relieved of that obligation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, in what circumstances (if any) may a Member State be relieved of that obligation?

| 3. | To what extent (if at all) are the obligations of a Member State which has failed to comply with article 13 affected by article 23 (in particular its second paragraph)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent (if at all) are the obligations of a Member State which has failed to comply with article 13 affected by article 23 (in particular its second paragraph)?

| 4. | In the event of non-compliance with articles 13 or 22, what (if any) remedies must a national court provide as a matter of European law in order to comply with article 30 of the Directive and/or article 4 or 19 TEU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of non-compliance with articles 13 or 22, what (if any) remedies must a national court provide as a matter of European law in order to comply with article 30 of the Directive and/or article 4 or 19 TEU?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

1

OJ L 152, p. 1

---
# C_2015213EN.01004201.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/42

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

(Case F-79/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - EMCDDA staff - Temporary staff - Decision not to renew a contract of employment - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Administrative inquiry - Judgment by default - Examination of the admissibility of the application - Act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility - Allocation of costs))

(2015/C 213/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti and F. Pereyra, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request seeking recognition of the fact that she had been the victim of psychological harassment on the part of her line manager and, secondly, of the decision not to renew her contract and, as a result, an application for a new investigation to be conducted and for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that the parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1/2/2014, p. 22.

1

---
# DLA Distribution hosts DLA Disposition Services Director

/ Published April 28, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Deputy Commander Perry Knight hosted DLA Disposition Services Director, Mike Cannon, during a visit to DLA Distribution Headquarters in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, April 5.

Topics of discussion included several continual process improvement projects that affect both DLA agencies, including a project to redesign the disposition process for unresolved freight through the new DLA warehouse management system, ensuring shipments of excess property for disposal are certified for disposal to DLA Disposition Services and a new mapping project that loops in DLA Land and Maritime to dispose of demilitarized material.

Agency leaders also discussed the implementation of WMS, network optimization, the F-35 product support transition, how the DLA Expeditionary team operates and is utilized and an overview and use of the Global Distribution Expeditionary Contract.
No. 09-10886.

#### John Rooney, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 854, 131 S. Ct. 117,

178 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6043,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 287 Ga. 1, 690 S.E.2d 804.
EXHIBIT
32.2*







Section
1350 Certification





I, Steven G. Larson, the principal
financial officer of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of
the United States Code that, to my knowledge:





(i)           the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31,
2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and





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





Date:
            June
      6, 2008/s/Steven G. LarsonSteven
      G. Larson




*The
material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
**EXHIBIT 12.2**I, Dudi Machluf, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (the“Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a- 15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a- 15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 

 
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: July 2, 2007       /s/ Dudi Machluf    Dudi Machluf    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 24,
2009, (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
Sensurion Inc., d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace 

6400 34th Avenue, South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

david.strohm@sensurion.com 

March 1, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Request to amend and allow Sensurion Inc., d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace to utilize 

additional sUAS platforms under the same direction as provided within exemption #13522, 

docket # FAA-2015-3542, approved November 5, 2015. 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Sensurion Inc. (d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace) was issued an exemption under Section 333 of the 

"FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2013) (the Reform Act) numbered 13522 (the 

Exemption) for the purpose of conducting sUAS operations in the market research, aerial survey 

and mapping and inspection industries. Sensurion Inc., hereby requests an amendment to the 

Exemption to allow for an additional variant ofthe MP-1 (the MP-T) unmanned aircraft (UAS) to 

be operated in full compliance set forth in the Exemption. 

Sensurion Inc., requests permission to operate the following sUAS based on its type, size, 

weight and speed under the same parameters set forth in regards to capabilities and limitations 

identified within the Operator's Manual and Maintenance Manual: 

Model 

MP-T Conventional 

Fixed-wing 

Wingspan 

80" 

Sensurion, Inc. 

Weight 

11.5 # 

6300-34 th Ave. South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 

50 kts.
# Former Clothing and Textiles, Acquisition leader inducted into DLA Hall of Fame

/ Published Sept. 20, 2016
# Start marking your calendars

/ Published Jan. 5, 2016
COLUMBUS, Ohio,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT MARCH 31, 2000 (AUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 (AUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               2,818
<SECURITIES>                                         5,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (500)
<INVENTORY>                                          4,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,489
<PP&E>                                              17,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (12,398)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      23,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,989
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                99
<OTHER-SE>                                          20,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        23,980
<SALES>                                             17,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    17,092
<CGS>                                                9,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2,537)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  5,360
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         5,360
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .54



</TABLE>
#### Marilyn Michalowski, Respondent, v John D’Alessandro et al., Appellants.

[767 NYS2d 898]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated January 13, 2003, which, in effect, granted the plaintiff’s motion to direct the defendant John D’Alessandro to provide the dates of his own medical treatment, the names and specialties of his treating doctors, the name and symptoms of his condition, and copies of his applications for disability benefits.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Discovery with respect to a party’s mental or physical condition is permitted only when that party’s mental or physical condition has been placed in controversy *(see*CPLR 3121). Such a situation may arise where a defendant affirmatively asserts the condition either by way of a counterclaim or to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff *(see Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]; *Cannistra v County of Putnam,*139 AD2d 479 [1988]). In this case, the mental and physical condition of the defendant John D’Alessandro was not placed in controversy by his acknowledgment at his examination before trial that, approximately 10 months after he last treated the plaintiff, he retired from his practice for medical reasons *(see Cannistra v County of Putnam, supra).*Nor, given the remoteness in time, were his mental and physical conditions placed into controversy by the manner in which he responded to questions at his examination before trial, which took place more than *21⁄2*years after he last treated the plaintiff. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32





Section 1350 Certifications




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:




To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A  of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated:  September 30, 2011







/s/ John Williams


John Williams


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:  September 30, 2011








/s/ John Williams


John Williams


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 10-111.

#### Mohamed F. El-Hewie, Petitioner v. Board of Education of the Bergen County Vocational School District, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 298,

178 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6162.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Richard Brown, an Attorney.

[51 NYS3d 903]

Per Curiam.

Daniel Richard Brown was admitted to practice by this Court in 2014 and lists a business address in Chicago, Illinois with the Office of Court Administration. Brown now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for *1470the Third Judicial Department advises that it does not oppose Brown’s application.

Upon reading the affidavit of Brown sworn to October 11, 2016, and upon reading the correspondence in response by the Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that Brown is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Daniel Richard Brown’s application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that Daniel Richard Brown’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court *(see generally*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [b]); and it is further ordered that Daniel Richard Brown shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him.
#### Mauricio Fernholz et al., Respondents, v Craig Hart et al., Respondents, and The Board of Managers of the Washington Irving Condominium, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 42]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered July 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Board of Managers of the Washington Irving Condominium’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the nuisance and nuisance per se causes of action and the cross claims based on negligence and breach of contract against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against the Board.

Plaintiffs and defendants Craig Hart and Rebecca Barber, the owners of the apartment directly above plaintiffs’ apartment, challenge the Board’s 2004 decision not to require the former owner of the Hart and Barber apartments to rebuild an interior wall she had demolished without authorization. They contend that the absence of the wall created a condition that amplified noises from the Hart and Barber apartment.

The Board established prima facie its entitlement to summary dismissal of the complaint and cross claims on the ground that its decision was protected by the business judgment rule *(see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp.,*75 NY2d 530 [1990]). The record shows that the Board engaged an independent expert who opined that the removal of the wall did not affect the structural integrity of the building and did not cause the noise.

In opposition, plaintiffs and Hart and Barber failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the Board’s decision not to require rebuilding of the wall and its handling of plaintiffs’ noise complaint were in breach of its fiduciary duty to the condominium *(see id.*at 538). They submitted no evidence that the Board’s actions were not taken in furtherance of a corporate purpose or that the Board acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, or out of favoritism, discrimination or malice *(see 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman,*100 NY2d 147, 156, 157 [2003]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.