alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013359EN.01000301.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2013 — Walter Jubin v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

(Case C-475/13)

2013/C 359/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walter Jubin

Applicant:

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May compensation granted under national law, which is intended to reimburse additional travel costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of a booked flight, be deducted from the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (1) if the air carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(1) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May compensation granted under national law, which is intended to reimburse additional travel costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of a booked flight, be deducted from the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (1) if the air carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(1) of the regulation?

1

| 2. | If deduction is possible: does it also apply to the cost of alternative transportation to the final destination of the flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If deduction is possible: does it also apply to the cost of alternative transportation to the final destination of the flight?

| 3. | In so far as deduction is possible: may the air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is it dependent on the extent to which it is permitted by national law or the court considers it equitable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In so far as deduction is possible: may the air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is it dependent on the extent to which it is permitted by national law or the court considers it equitable?

| 4. | In so far as national law is applicable or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and the loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In so far as national law is applicable or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and the loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
No. 10-5931.

#### David W. Wilson, Petitioner v. Suzan Hubbard, et al.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 419,

178 L. Ed. 2d 326,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8141.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2014135EN.01003802.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/38

---

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council

(Case T-187/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply - Period within which an action must be brought - Action brought out of time - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, in so far as they concern the applicant, of: (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 43); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29); (iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 213, p. 58); (iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 64); (v) Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); (vi) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); (vii) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); and (ix) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Mahmoud Jannatian shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mahmoud Jannatian shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6745.

#### Robert E. Baker, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 662,

178 L. Ed. 2d 494,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9158.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
*July 7, 2017*

2017-Ohio-5763.]

2017-0913.

#### Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Dept. of Edn.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-863, 2017-Ohio-5607. Appellee shall file a response, if any, to appellants’ emergency motions for injunction no later than 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 10, 2017.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Kindell, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 116]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J. at original and reopened suppression hearings; Rena K. Uviller, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, attempted burglary in the second degree and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 19 V2 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

This Court previously held this appeal in abeyance pending a reopened suppression hearing (135 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2016]). Upon remand, the court conducted the reopened hearing and again denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports that determination. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence credited by the hearing court establishes that the search and seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that delay resulting from the original ineffective representation (see *id.)*prejudiced his ability to litigate the reopened proceedings.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. We have considered and rejected the other claims raised, but not addressed, on the original appeal, including those contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Acosta, Renwick, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2511

To specifically exclude certain programs from provisions of the Electronic

Funds Transfer Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To specifically exclude certain programs from provisions of

the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFERS.

4 Section 904 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15

5 U.S.C. 1693b) is amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(d)’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new

8 paragraphs:

9 ‘‘(2)(A) The Board may not, under paragraph (1),

10 make the disclosures, protections, responsibilities, and
2

•S 2511 IS

1 remedies created by this title apply to an electronic benefit

2 transfer program established under State or local law, or

3 administered by a State or local government, unless the

4 payment under such programs is made directly into a con5 sumer’s account held by the recipient.

6 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to employ7 ment related payments including salaries, pension, retire8 ment, or unemployment benefits established by Federal,

9 State, or local governments.

10 ‘‘(C) Nothing in subparagraph (A) alters the protec11 tions of benefits established by Federal, State, or local

12 statute.

13 ‘‘(D) For purposes of subparagraph (A), an electronic

14 benefit transfer program is a program under which a gov15 ernment agency distributes needs-tested benefits by estab16 lishing accounts to be accessed by recipients electronically,

17 such as through automated teller machines, or point-of18 sale terminals. A program established for the purpose of

19 enforcing the support obligations owed by absent parents

20 to their children and the custodial parents with whom the

21 children are living is not an electronic benefit transfer

22 program.’’.

Æ
DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

Chestnut Run Plaza 

P.O. Box 2915 

Wilmington, DE 19805

 DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

February 9, 2012 

Margaret Sheppard 

Environmental Scientist 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Margaret, 

I am writing for guidance concerning the requirements under the SNAP program for foam 

blowing agents. 

As you know, in 2009 we submitted and had approved SNAP applications for hydrofluorocarbon 

(HFC) blowing agent blends of [HFC-134a/HFC-152a] (DuPont's Formacel® B) and [HFC134a/HFC-134] (DuPont's Formacel® TI). [The Formacel TI application was submitted because 

of our interest in HFC-134a with higher levels of the HFC-134 isomer. The HFC-134 isomer has 

traditionally been present in HFC-134a at low levels (upwards of 0.5%)]. 

We are currently studying a variation of the Formacel® B blend where the [HFC-134 level would 

be increased from about 0.2-0.3% to about 10%]. 

Information that had been submitted in the previous two applications mentioned above addressed 

these three components. In light of that information, would a new SNAP application be required 

for such a change? 

Thank-you for your assistance and feedback. 

This page contains no Confidential Business Information. 

 Sincerely, 

 Joseph A. Creazzo 

 Senior Technical Service Consultant 

 DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

 P.O. Box 2915 

 Wilmington, DE 19805 

 302-999-4167 

 joseph.a.creazzo@usa.dupont.com
EXHIBIT
      32.01





SUPERIOR
      BANCORP


CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Superior Bancorp (the
      “Company”) certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of the Company for the Quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.




Dated:
                  November 9, 2007
              /s/
                  C. Stanley BaileyC.
                  Stanley BaileyChief
                  Executive Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.5

                                    CONFIRMATION

TO: JOHN  PRYCE

         This is to confirm renewal of the employment agreement made as of
November 22, 2001, for a further one year period commencing in January, 2004,
and ending on December 31, 2004, under the same terms and conditions, including,
the terms relating to compensation.

         Dated at Markham this 2nd day of January, 2004




         MIAD SYSTEMS LTD.


         Per: /s/ Michael Green
              -------------------------
              Michael Green - President
Page 1 of 1

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 9, 2013

SUBJECT: Response to Iprodione Preliminary Work Plan Comments Regarding Rice

FROM: James Parker, Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

TO: Iprodione Registration Review Docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0392)

On December 14, 2012, the Agency initiated a 60 day public comment period for the iprodione

registration review docket, which ended on February 12, 2013. During the public comment period, the

Agency received several comments from FMC, which included a comment regarding appropriate

iprodione uses for risk assessment. FMC requested the Agency publish the final voluntary cancellation 

order associated with a 2008 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments to delete 

the rice use from certain iprodione registrations. All other iprodione comments submitted by FMC 

were addressed in separate response documents, which are available in the iprodione registration review 

docket.

A Federal Register notice dated October 29, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 210, 64327; EPA-HQ-OPP2008-0761, FRL-8387-3), announced the Agency’s receipt of a voluntary cancellation request to delete 

iprodione use on rice for specific registrations. No comments were received in response to this notice. 

As a follow-up to the cancellation request, EPA is in the process of publishing a final cancellation order 

which will delete the use on rice from the registrations identified in Table 1.

Table 1 Iprodione Registrations with Requests for Amendments to Delete Use

No. EPA Reg. No. Product Name Delete From Label

1. 264-452 Iprodione Technical Rice

2. 264-482 Roval Brand 4 Flowable Fungicide Rice

3. 264-524 Roval Brand WG Fungicide Rice

4. 264-532 Roval Brand 50 SP Fungicide Rice

5. 264-689 Roval Brand 75WG Fungicide Rice

6. 662222-144 Nevado 4F Rice

In preparation for a registration review Decision, the Agency will assess risks for all uses which 

are identified on approved iprodione labels.
# C_2014292EN.01004001.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Erreà Sport v OHIM — Facchinelli (ANTONIO BACIONE)

(Case T-36/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ANTONIO BACIONE - Earlier Community figurative mark erreà and earlier national figurative mark representing two overlapping lozenges - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erreà Sport SpA (Torrile, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Antonio Facchinelli (Dalang, China)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 1561/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Erreà Sport SpA and Antonio Facchinelli.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Erreà Sport SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Erreà Sport SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
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 GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William V. Walton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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

Date: November 20, 2006                         By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                                    ----------------------
                                                    William V. Walton
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1687]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1169-000]


Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Central Louisiana Electric 
Company, Inc., (CLECO), tendered for filing a service agreement under 
which CLECO will provide non-firm point-to-point transmission service 
to NESI Power Marketing, Inc., under its point-to-point transmission 
tariff.
    CLECO states that a copy of the filing has been served on NESI 
Power Marketing, Inc.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1687 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-7227.

#### Rashaun Barkley, Petitioner v. Larry Glover, Administrator, Northern State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 1114, 131 S. Ct. 834,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9751,

178 L. Ed. 2d 567,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 209 Fed. Appx. 120.
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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   Date: February 16, 2010/s/ Gary C. Granoff
Gary C. Granoff
Chief Financial Officer