alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013325EN.01001302.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2013 — SC BCR Leasing IFN SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de soluționare a contestațiilor

(Case C-438/13)

2013/C 325/22

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC BCR Leasing IFN SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de soluționare a contestațiilor

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

May a situation involving goods under a financial leasing contract which, following termination of the contract as a result of the user’s breach, have not been recovered from the user by the leasing company, even though that company has instituted and followed the statutory procedures for recovery and, after termination, has not received any further amount for the use of the goods, be considered a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 2006/[112]/EC (1) or, possibly, a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 18 of Directive 2006/[112]/EC?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
#### Yuhua Han et al., Appellants, v Eduard Gladyshev, Also Known as Eduaro Gladyshev, Respondent.

[57 NYS3d 893]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 5, 2016, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Yuhua Han (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was walking across Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn when she was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. Before anyone was deposed, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery. We affirm.

*763Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was premature. No one has been deposed, and the defendant has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. Moreover, the injured plaintiff and the defendant submitted affidavits containing discrepancies pertaining to the circumstances of the subject accident *(see Bond v DeMasco,*84 AD3d 1292, 1293 [2011]; *Cardone v Poidamani,*73 AD3d 828 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability with leave to renew upon completion of discovery.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
# C_2015065EN.01003201.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — MEM v OHIM (MONACO)

(Case T-197/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MONACO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 151(1) and Article 154(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - partial refusal of protection))

(2015/C 065/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marques de l’État de Monaco (MEM) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Arnaud. Melgar, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 113/2012-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark MONACO.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marques de l’État de Monaco (MEM) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marques de l’État de Monaco (MEM) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            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 Cedric Kushner Promotions,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Cedric Kushner, Chief Executive 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 Cedric  Kushner  Promotions,  Inc.  and will be  retained by Cedric
Kushner Promotions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.




Date: November 18, 2004                  /s/ Cedric Kushner
                                         ------------------
                                      Name:  Cedric Kushner
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15638]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 6, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. The Winter Trust of December 3, 1974, and El Paso Bancshares, 
Inc., both of Monument, Colorado; to merge with Peoples Trust of 1987, 
and Peoples, Inc., both of Ottawa, Kansas, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Peoples National Bank & Trust, Ottawa, Kansas, Johnson County 
Bank, Overland Park, Kansas, and Peoples National Bank, Overland Park, 
Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 8, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-15638 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Ryan Nowak, Respondent, v Jose Benites et al., Appellants.

[60 NYS3d 48]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Vazquez-Doles, J.), dated November 15, 2016, which *614denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(see Tutrani v County of Suffolk,*10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; *Theo v Vasquez,*136 AD3d 795 [2016]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affidavit of the defendant driver, which demonstrated that his vehicle was fully stopped in a moving lane of traffic due to mechanical failure and not as the result of any fault on his part when it was struck in the rear by the plaintiff’s vehicle *(see Prosen v Mabella,*107 AD3d 870, 871 [2013]; *Blasso v Parente,*79 AD3d 923, 925 [2010]; *Mankiewicz v Excellent,*25 AD3d 591, 592 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of a nonparty witness who was traveling ahead of the plaintiff’s vehicle, who himself managed to avoid a collision with the defendants and who provided no information as to what the plaintiff actually saw or did prior to the incident, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was at fault in the happening of the accident or whether the plaintiff had a nonnegligent explanation for colliding with the defendants’ stopped vehicle *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.    Subsidiaries of the Registrant
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Percentage
                                     State or country     of voting
                                         in which         securities
                                       incorporated          owned

<S>                                     <S>                 <C>

Registrant:
  Dravo Corporation                     Pennsylvania         --

Subsidiaries of Dravo Corporation:
  Dravo Basic Materials
    Company, Inc.                       Alabama             100%
  Dravo Equipment                       Delaware            100
  Dravo Lime Company                    Delaware            100
  Princeton Ridge, Inc.                 New Jersey          100

Subsidiary of Dravo Basic Materials
 Company, Inc.:
  Dravo Natural Resources Company       Delaware             50

Subsidiary of Dravo Lime Company:
  Dravo Natural Resources Company       Delaware             50
</TABLE>
                                

                              21-1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Howard, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 893]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed May 13, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Kupershmidt,*152 AD3d 797 [2017]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, therefore, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Chambers, Sgroi, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Major facility upgrade underway at Barstow property disposal hub 

/ Published Jan. 25, 2024
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The mammoth supply depository Warehouse 14 sits right on the shoulder of historic Route 66 at the edge of the broiling Mojave Desert.

The cavernous WWII-era building will soon become homebase for the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services team at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow in southern California. 

Site personnel currently motor back and forth between various yards and buildings spread across MCLB Barstow’s dusty Nebo Annex, where daytime highs average in the mid-90s and above at least four months out of the year. A $24 million U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-managed facility update that recently got underway aims to put all those DLA personnel under one roof and create major workflow advantages. 

                Material Examiner and Identifier John Krishna delivers surplus material to Warehouse 14 at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow in August, 2023. Construction is underway to modernize the WWII-era building for the DLA Disposition Services property disposal team there. The structure’s layout will allow for property drop offs and pick ups to occur on opposite sides of the building, dramatically increasing the site’s processing and transportation workflows.                            230831-D-GV919-2223                            Material Examiner and Identifier John Krishna delivers surplus material to Warehouse 14 at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow in August, 2023. Construction is underway to modernize the WWII-era building for the DLA Disposition Services property disposal team there. The structure’s layout will allow for property drop offs and pick ups to occur on opposite sides of the building, dramatically increasing the site’s processing and transportation workflows.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jake JoyVIRIN: 230831-D-GV919-2223“Employees at DLA Disposition Services Barstow have dispersed work areas,” said site Operations Supervisor Nuhu Kashalla. “We work from several different locations and must transport property from one warehouse to another to be worked, and then move the worked property to a different warehouse to be stored. This takes people away from the processing line for extended periods at a time and lowers the site’s effectiveness, since two or more people are engaged in moving these properties, sometimes almost half a mile away.” 

Kashalla said the renovation will not only provide employees with some of the creature comforts of a modern workspace, but will also allow them to centralize efforts and generate efficiencies, “especially with less time lost moving property.”

A pre-construction meeting took place in August that gathered stakeholders and preliminary work on considerations like floor joints commenced in January. The project is expected to last for about one year, according to USACE. The effort is not expected to disturb the site’s property disposition mission, which includes support to major installations like Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, California’s Fort Irwin and Hill Air Force Base in Utah.
#### People v Moore (Zachary)

County Ct, 5/18/16 (Monroe)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Floyd Wigfall, Defendant-Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 617]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered November 9, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s present claim that there was a lack of evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding his initial detention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence adduced at the hearing established the legality of defendant’s arrest *(see People v Gonzalez,*91 NY2d 909 [1998]; *People v Sabeno,*223 AD2d 512 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 884 [1996]).

Defendant has failed to preserve his contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.
No. 09-11574.

#### Richard Ronald Kporlor, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 503,

178 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8464.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 597 F.3d 222.
# DLA Troop Support DTS Team Attends GovTravels Symposium 

/ Published March 11, 2024
Philadelphia, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Defense Travel System team attended the GovTravels symposium February 26-28, 2024 in Alexandria, Virginia to gain knowledge on how to better support workforce travel needs.  

Supervisory Management and Program Analyst Giovanni Morales, along with his teammates, Justin Riker and Trevor Draut, both management and program analysts, were first-time attendees to the event.  

According to the symposium website, Gov Travels is a three-day event, co-sponsored by the National Defense Transportation Association and the Defense Management Travel Office. The purpose is to bring together experts from across the federal government and the commercial travel industry to examine a wide range of issues that impact the government’s multi-billion-dollar travel enterprise.  

“We often receive similar questions from travelers and wanted to attend to gain a better understanding of the Defense Travel System in order to better serve our customers,” Morales said. 

Draut agreed. 

“Some of the most common errors, especially in vouchers, continue to be proper documentation,” said Draut. “The documentations such as utilization of valid receipts to support reimbursable expenses. The errors would include pre-Audits, per diem rates for meals and/or leave, and receipts loaded for all reimbursable lodging cost claimed.” 

In addition to learning ways to serve the customer better, all attendees agreed that gaining the knowledge to educate customers on DTS as a whole was a benefit of attending the symposium. 

“Primary reasons for errors were noted as a lack of Travelers knowledge of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and how to properly input items into DTS,” added Draut. 

Plans are now in the works to create an internal training program for DLA Troop Support travelers.  

“The key to any successful travel program is to implement a training program to further educate travelers on best practices for authorizations and vouchers,” Morales said. “The overall benefit for Troop Support in the fact it will continue to develop its Travel Team staff, to better provide services and communicate changes to the workforce.” 

As the industry is constantly evolving, the team looks forward to more learning opportunities.  

“The travel process is going to never be a routine process,” said Riker. “Technology is going to change, regulations will be put into place, and that we need to continue to be proactive in gaining knowledge in the aspect of supporting the mission to DLA Troop Support.”
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L I Z AN DR O J OS E C AS T R E S AN ARODRI GU EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 75033 A ge nc yN o. A 039- 314- 641 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L i z a ndr o J os e C a s tr e s a na - R odr i gue z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of P e ru, pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de ra f f i rm i ng a n i m m i gr a t i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi s app l i ca t i on s f or cancel l at i on of re m ov al and rel i ef



# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 06- 75033 2 u n d e rf o rm e r§ 2 1 2 ( c ) o f

th e I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tio n a lityA c t. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 , a n dwe g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I n c onc l udi ng tha tC a s tr e s a na - R odr i gue z w a s s t a tut or i l yi ne l i gi bl e f or c a nc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l unde r8 U . S . C . § 1229b( a ) ( 2) , the a ge nc ydi d notha ve the be ne f i tof ourde c i s i on i n Si no tes -Cruz v . G on zales , 4 6 8 F .3 d1 1 9 0 , 1 2 0 1 - 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , in w h ic h w e h e ldth a t “p a rt B o f th e s to p - tim e ru le o f

[ 8 U .S .C .] § 1 22 9b (d)( 1) do es no tappl y r etroac t i vel y t o the se ven-ye arcont i nu ou s r es i dence r e qui r e m e ntof

§ 1229b( a ) ( 2) f

ora n a l i e n w ho pl e d gui l tybe f or e the e na c tm e ntof [ the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f orm a nd I m m i gr a ntR e s pons i bi l i tyA c tof 1996 ( “ I I RI RA ” ) ] a n dw a s e l i g i b l e f o rd i s c r e t i o n a ryr e l i e f

a tth e t i me I I RI RA b e c a me ef fe ct i ve. ” C

f . V alenci a-A lvarez v . G on zales , 569 F . 3d 1319 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . We th e r e f o r e r e m a n df

o rth e a g e n c yto r e c o n s id e rC a s tr e s a n a - R o d r ig u e z ’s e lig ib ility f o rc a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. In li g h t o f o u r d isp o siti o n , w e n ee dn o t ad d re ss C as tres an a- R o d rig u ez ’s rem ai n i n g co n t en t i o n s. E a c h p a rtys h a l l b e a ri t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.