alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016335EN.01000701.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

(Case C-486/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation - No examination of the merits of the case))

(2016/C 335/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Piotr Kossowski

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Other party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of ne bis in idem laid down in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, which was signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the public prosecutor terminating criminal proceedings and finally closing the investigation procedure against a person, albeit with the possibility of its being reopened or annulled, without any penalties having been imposed, cannot be characterised as a final decision for the purposes of those articles when it is clear from the statement of reasons for that decision that the procedure was closed without a detailed investigation having been carried out; in that regard, the fact that neither the victim nor a potential witness was interviewed is an indication that no such investigation took place.

ne bis in idem

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

1

---
No. 10-7697.

#### Javier Vazquez-Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 960,

178 L. Ed. 2d 791,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 203.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-25.

#### Mary H. Macon, Petitioner v. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 693,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9115.

178 L. Ed. 2d 523,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 227, 178 L. Ed. 2d 136, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6759.
# C_2017239EN.01000201.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Kingdom of Sweden v Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Finland

(Case C-562/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Right of public access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents - General presumption of confidentiality - Documents relating to an EU Pilot procedure))

(2017/C 239/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Commission:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
No. 10-7741.

#### Jeff McMahan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 964,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 605.

178 L. Ed. 2d 793,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 394 Fed. Appx. 453.
RFP SPE4A2-16-R-0001

ATTACHMENT 10  

**NOTE TO OFFERORS**:  Past performance information concerning critical subcontractors and/or joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the critical subcontractor's or joint venture partner's consent.  Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing critical subcontractor/joint venture partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges.  In an effort to assist the Government's Past Performance Team in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that **the following consent form be completed by the critical subcontractors/joint venture partners identified in your proposal**.  The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

**CRITICAL SUBCONTRACTOR/JOINT VENTURE PARTNER CONSENT FORM FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR**

	Dear Dean C. Allen Jr.

We are currently participating as a (critical subcontractor/joint venture partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation (DLA Aviation) request for Proposal SPE4A2-16-R-0001 for the AF IPV GEN III.

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections.  In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

________________________

________________________

(Signature and Title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36942-36943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18026]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Fourth public meeting of the Advisory Council to the 
Partnership of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area to be 
held July 7, 1998, 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. in the Piemonte Room, 5th Floor, 
Boston City Hall.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. George Price, Project Manager, Boston Harbor Islands National 
Recreation Area, at 617-223-8666. Written comments can be addressed to 
George Price, Project Manager, Boston Harbor Islands National 
Recreation Area, 408 Atlantic Ave., Suite 228, Boston, MA 02110-3316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda for the meeting includes: 
Chairman's report; approval of the minutes of the July 16 and June 4 
meetings; reports by the Advisory Council representatives to the Boston 
Harbor Islands Partnership; report on the Partnership Management Plan; 
reports from the National Park Service and the Island Alliance; other 
committee reports; public comment; old business; new business; and 
future meeting dates.
    Public garages are located next to Quincy Market, or at the 
Government Center Garage. Nearby MBTA stations are Government Center, 
Haymarket, and State Street. Street-level handicapped access to City 
Hall is located at the entrance on Congress Street.
    The 28 Advisory Council members were appointed by the Director of 
the National Park Service and represent: business, educational, 
cultural, and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding the 
harbor; and Native American interests. The Advisory Council was formed 
to advise and make

[[Page 36943]]

recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect 
to the development and implementation of the Integrated Management Plan 
and the operation of this new national park area.
    In 1996 Congress created the Boston Harbor Islands National 
Recreation Area to recognize the rich natural and cultural resources 
and history found on the 30 islands located in Boston Harbor. The 
legislation (P.L. 104-333) established a thirteen-member partnership to 
jointly manage the Islands. The 13-member Partnership represents city, 
state, federal and private agencies with responsibilities for the 
harbor islands.

    Dated: June 30, 1998.
Bruce Jacobson,
Acting Project Manager, Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
[FR Doc. 98-18026 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
No. 10-7114.

#### Mustafa Redzic, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1170, 131 S. Ct. 918,

178 L. Ed. 2d 805,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 446.

January 10, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17405]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Title: Management Agreement Between Port of Oakland and Marine 
Terminals Corporation
Parties: City of Oakland (Board of Port Commissioners) Marine Terminals 
Corporation
Synopsis: The proposed amendment changes a minimum annual hourly use 
guarantee of port cranes to a minimum equivalent unit container 
guarantee and provides for a reduction in the amount of the per lift 
charge. The term of the agreement continues to run through June 30, 
2004.

Title: City of Los Angeles and Matson Terminals, Inc. Marine Terminal 
Permit No. 776
Parties: City of Los Angeles (Board of Harbor Commissioners) Matson 
Terminals, Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment increases both the size of the area 
leased and the amount of the rent required. The term of the agreement 
continues to run through January 31, 1999.

Title: Cruise Terminal Agreement Among the Port of Palm Beach District, 
Contessa International Company and Contessa Cruise and Casino, Inc.
Parties: Port of Palm Beach District, Contessa International Company, 
Contessa Cruise and Casino, Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed agreement provides for the use of Palm Beach's 
Cruise Terminal Area by Contessa International Company and its agent, 
Contessa Cruise and Casino, Inc. The term of the agreement runs through 
June 21, 2004, with the possibility of two 4-year extensions.

    Dated: June 25, 1998.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17405 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### Ricky Barnes, Plaintiff, v New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., et al., Defendants. AJ Contracting Company, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Forest Datacom Services Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant. (And Other Actions.)

[769 NYS2d 224]

*185Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Oman-sky, J.), entered March 19, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the third-party complaint of defendant and third-party plaintiff AJ Contracting Company, Inc. (AJ) as against third-party defendant Forest Datacom Services Inc. (Forest), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and AJ granted contractual indemnity against Forest. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment in accordance herewith.

AJ, the general contractor for the project on which plaintiff was working when he was injured, is entitled, under article 9.3 of the general conditions of the subcontract, to be indemnified by Forest, the subcontractor that employed plaintiff, for AJ’s stipulated settlement payment to plaintiff. Article 9.3 obligates Forest to indemnify AJ against all loss “arising out of, or in any way relating to the performance of this Contract, and [Forest] agrees to provide and maintain insurance thereon.” Forest’s argument that the matter is governed by a 1983 blanket purchase order agreement, containing a more limited indemnity provision, is unavailing, as the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the blanket purchase order agreement, which predates the subcontract in question by 13 years, was still in force at the relevant time. We also reject Forest’s argument that plaintiffs accident was not contract-related. Finally, General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 is not an obstacle to enforcement of the subject indemnity agreement, both because the jury found that AJ’s negligence was not a substantial factor in the causation of the accident, and because enforcement of an indemnity agreement coupled with the obligation to procure liability insurance does not offend the statute *(see Santamaria v 1125 Park Ave. Corp.,*238 AD2d 259, 260 [1997], and authorities therein cited).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE DASAWN FULLER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 73 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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  on  Form  10-QSB/A  of  Vote
Power Corporation  (the  "Company")  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2005
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby  certify  in  their  capacities  as
Chief Executive Officer  and Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
respectively, 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 operations of the Company.


Dated: January 14, 2008            By:  /S/ Inti Shaikh
                                   -------------------------
                                   Inti Shaikh
                                   CEO and
                                   Secretary/Treasurer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
No. 10-5200.

#### Bryan Keith Hogan, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 815,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9495.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 257, 178 L. Ed. 2d 171, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6985.
# C_2017006EN.01000701.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission

(Case C-590/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Production of aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Distinction))

(2017/C 006/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, and by E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and A. Oikonomou, dikigoroi)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings:

European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2014 in Alouminion v Commission (T-542/11, EU:T:2014:859); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2014 in Alouminion v Commission (T-542/11, EU:T:2014:859);

| 2. | Refers Case T-542/11 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T-542/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2912 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2912

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 
    of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2019

    Mr. Delgado (for himself, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Kelly of 
Pennsylvania, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, and Mr. Bacon) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 
    of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Spouse Hiring Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR THE WORK 
              OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(K) a qualified military spouse.''.
    (b) Qualified Military Spouse.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of 
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(16) Qualified military spouse.--The term `qualified 
        military spouse' means any individual who is certified by the 
        designated local agency as being (as of the hiring date) a 
        spouse of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act to individuals who begin work for the employer after such 
date.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5229.

#### Christopher L. Alexander, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 640,

178 L. Ed. 2d 485,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9164.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 602 F.3d 639.