alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014024EN.01001201.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao); other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-599/13)

2014/C 24/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao)

Appellant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests or Article 53b(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (2) of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (3) of 13 December 2006, provide national authorities with a legal basis on which they may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests or Article 53b(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (2) of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (3) of 13 December 2006, provide national authorities with a legal basis on which they may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund?

1

2

3

| 2. | Does Article 25(2) of Council Decision 2004/904/EC (4) of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 constitute a legal basis on which national authorities may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund, without there being any need for authority to do so under national law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 25(2) of Council Decision 2004/904/EC (4) of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 constitute a legal basis on which national authorities may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund, without there being any need for authority to do so under national law?

4

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2006 L 390, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ 2004 L 381, p. 52.

4

---
# I am DLA

/ Published June 30, 2016
Fort Belvoir, 
**My name is:**

Linda Hill-Robinson

**I am:**

A customer account specialist in the Combat Air Force Customer Relationship Management Cell, DLA Aviation, Customer Operations Directorate.

**Describe your job in a sentence.**

I am the primary customer-facing point of contact for order fulfillment, responsible for processing customer orders, maintaining contact information, providing product information, handling emergency requests, initiating calls to customers, providing and/or validating customer account information and general customer support.

**How long have you worked for DLA?**

I arrived at Defense Supply Center Richmond in 1980. In my 36 years at DLA, I have held positions as a data transcriber, keypunch operator, computer operator, team lead, supervisor, inventory management specialist and, most recently, as a customer account specialist.

**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?**

I have many! DLA provides wonderful opportunities for advancement and educational growth. I consider myself a life-long learner and intend to take full advantage of the many opportunities offered and afforded to employees. I make it a point to encourage my colleagues to seek professional development opportunities and increase their knowledge in their field, as well as learn about other job roles. One of my favorite things about working for DLA is flextime. Being able to support my customer outside the traditional 9 to 5 is great! In addition, I like the allotted time for employees to exercise during the work day. 

**What are your best memories of working here?**

At one time, DLA used to celebrate Multicultural Day, to embrace the diversity of others. It was a great time to mingle with friends while sampling delicious and exotic foods. This awesome event exposed employees to cultural presenters that we would not ordinarily hear or meet, allowing us to learn about the beauty of other cultures while expanding our horizons.

**How do you make a difference?**

I believe I make a difference to the warfighter by never forgetting my purpose at DLA: to provide unparalleled and superior customer service to America’s service men and women worldwide. When I think about the sacrifices they make daily so we can live in a free country, I am overwhelmed with thanks and appreciation. I make it a point to say thank you for your service to all warfighters whenever the opportunity permits. I am blessed to live in the greatest country in the world, and I am proud it!
No. 10M37.

#### Russell Tinsley, Petitioner v. Louis Giorla, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 441,

178 L. Ed. 2d 319,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8159.

October 18, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 10-6599.

#### In re James A. Stahl, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 980, 131 S. Ct. 440,

178 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8251.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
# C_2013304EN.01000402.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

(Case C-388/13)

2013/C 304/07

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UPC Magyarország kft

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) ..., to be interpreted as precluding, in respect of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, a separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) ..., to be interpreted as precluding, in respect of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, a separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

1

| 2. | May a communication of false information to a single consumer be regarded as a commercial practice within the meaning of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a communication of false information to a single consumer be regarded as a commercial practice within the meaning of that directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

1

---
#### People v Kelly

1st Dept: 138 AD3d 574 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

s0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

140367

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140367 COA: 293382 Wayne CC: 02-010098-FC TIMOTHY L. BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 23, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 3.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            GRISTEDE'S SLOAN'S, INC.

            It is hereby certified that:

            1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
"Corporation") is Gristede's Sloan's, Inc.

            2. Article 1 the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                  "1. The name of the Corporation is Gristede's Foods, Inc."

            3. The amendments of the Certificate of Incorporation herein
certified have been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

Signed and attested to on  /s/ John A. Catsimatidis  August 13, 1999
John A. Catsimatidis, Chairman of the Board

Attest:


 /s/ Mark Kassner
-----------------------------------
Michael Seltzer, Secretary

<PAGE>

STATE OF NEW YORK       )
                        ) SS.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK      )

            BE IT REMEMBERED that, on August 13, 1999, before me, a Notary
Public duly authorized by law to take acknowledgement of deeds, personally came
John A. Catsimatidis, Chairman of the Board of Gristede's Sloan's, Inc., who
duly signed the foregoing instrument before me and acknowledged that such
signing is his act and deed, that such instrument as executed is the act and
deed of said corporation and that the facts stated therein are true.

            GIVEN under by hand on August 13, 1999.


                  Notary Public
# C_2015262EN.01002202.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M)

(Case T-662/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark M - Earlier Community word mark dm - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diseños Mireia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

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 11 September 2013 (Case R 911/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Diseños Mireia, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
# C_2015302EN.01004801.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — CSF v Commission

(Case T-337/13) (1)

1

((Approximation of the laws - Directive 2006/42/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘EC’ marking - Essential safety requirements - Risks to the safety of persons - Safeguard clause - Commission decision declaring a national measure prohibiting the placing on the market to be justified - Conditions governing the implementation of the safeguard clause - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 302/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, and M. Pappalardo, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Wolff, then M. Wolff, C. Thorning, U. Melgaard and N. Lyshøj, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013 on a measure taken by Denmark according to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CSF Srl to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action and the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CSF Srl to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action and the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.

1

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

<ARTICLE>             5
<CIK>                 0000031364
<NAME>                ECKERD CORPORATION
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        FEB-03-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                             FEB-03-1996   
<CASH>                                         7,922        
<SECURITIES>                                       0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                 73,137    
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,000    
<INVENTORY>                                  835,551    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             918,006   
<PP&E>                                       634,023    
<DEPRECIATION>                               282,974    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,490,699     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        597,388     
<BONDS>                                      701,798      
<COMMON>                                         700           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0             
<PREFERRED>                                        0             
<OTHER-SE>                                    54,041      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,490,699    
<SALES>                                    4,997,073    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           4,997,073     
<CGS>                                      3,874,723    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3,874,723     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             917,567       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               4,564      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            76,836   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              123,383     
<INCOME-TAX>                                  20,600         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          102,783     
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (9,306)      
<CHANGES>                                          0             
<NET-INCOME>                                  93,477    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   1.39  <F1>           
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.36  <F1>        
<FN>
<F1>EPS PRIMARY AND DILUTED REFLECTS THE TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK SPLIT EFFECTED IN THE
    FORM OF A STOCK DIVIDEND DECLARED APRIL 1, 1996 AND PAYABLE ON OR ABOUT MAY
    13, 1996. EPS PRIMARY AND DILUTED FOR PREVIOUSLY FILED FINANCIAL DATA 
    SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN RESTATED FOR THE STOCK SPLIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jan E. Chason, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Ckrush, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’), certify, pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that tothe best of my knowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June30,  2006 (the ‘‘Report’’)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. |

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCedric Kushner Promotions, Inc. and will be retained by Cedric KushnerPromotions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff uponrequest.

|        |  |  |                                                                                 |
|--------|--|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  |  | /s/Jan E. Chason                                                                |
|   |  |  | Jan E. ChasonExecutive VicePresident(Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |
|   |  |  | August 11,2006                                                                  |
|        |

----
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
Order entered September 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00709-CV

No. 05-19-00711-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.S., ET AL, CHILDREN

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L. JR., ET AL, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-10695

ORDER

Janet Saavedra, Official Court Reporter for the 254th Judicial District Court, filed the 

reporter’s records in these cases. Accordingly, we VACATE our September 17, 2019 order that 

orders Ms. Saavedra to not sit as a court reporter. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Ashley Wysocki, 

Presiding Judge, 254th Judicial Court; Janet Saavedra, Official Court Reporter, 254th Judicial 

District Court; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and counsel for all parties. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0359. MICHAEL D. CARNES v. CHANDRA PATTERSON.

Michael D.Carnes (“Husband”) and Chandra Patterson (“Wife”) were divorced

in May 2019. In April 2021, the trial court issued an order finding Husband in

contempt for not making certain alimony and debt payments as provided in the

parties’ final divorce decree. Husband then filed this direct appeal, seeking review of

the contempt order.1

 We lack jurisdiction. 

Appeals from orders in domestic relations cases, including orders holding or

declining to hold persons in contempt, must be pursued by discretionary application.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Because this is a domestic relations case, Husband was required to

comply with the discretionary appeal procedure to obtain review of the contempt

1 Husband filed his appeal in the Supreme Court but, upon finding no basis for

that Court’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this Court. See

Case No. S21A1287 (Aug. 24, 2021).

October 19, 2021
orders. His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/19/2021