alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020230EN.01001501.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2020 — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines

(Case C-146/20)

(2020/C 230/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD, BE, CF

Defendant: Corendon Airlines

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier brings forward a flight, which has been booked as part of a package tour, from the scheduled departure time of 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier brings forward a flight, which has been booked as part of a package tour, from the scheduled departure time of 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day?

| 2. | Is a notification, 10 days prior to the start of the journey, about the bringing forward of a flight from 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a notification, 10 days prior to the start of the journey, about the bringing forward of a flight from 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation 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).

---
# C_2021138EN.01003001.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-238/20) (1)

(State aid - Air transport market in Sweden, from Sweden and to Sweden - Loan guarantees to support airlines amid the Covid-19 pandemic - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Free provision of services - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Criterion of holding a licence issued by the Swedish authorities - Failure to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Ratio legis - Duty to state reasons)

(2021/C 138/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. C. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, C. Mosser, A. Daniel and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Eklinder, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and J. Lundberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2366 final of 11 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56812 (2020/N) — Sweden — COVID-19: Loan guarantee scheme to airlines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the request for confidential treatment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the request for confidential treatment;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

HonorableJulianWntgomry state Hlghwag Engineer Austin, Texas **Dear** Sir:

**We acknowleclg**  7, 1960, in whloh you r ment upon the following

on a ranoh

1: w&oh lir.

Lawler The Alamo Freight er.of oountiea,lnore it has Q freight ellyery station similar laed in numerousother **rboords** are kept, 16 locate6 xar Qouatr, Texas, and San n offloe of the **Almio** Freight
you please advise us where under Artiols 6675e,Refloed **Statutes, 1025,**  the actor ychiclee owned by Mr. Lawlm and operated by the Alma Prelght Linesmust be registered.* That pert of Article 667ba-8,Vernon*ai Revised Civil Statute8 or mxas, wbioh Zs pertlnont to the **quwti0n**

### 714:

HonorableJulian h'ontgomery, Page 2

under conslderatlon, reads as rollows: "Every ovmer of a motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailerused or to bo used upon the pub110 hlghmays or this Stats, and eaoh ohauffeur, shall apply eaoh year to the State Elghway Departmentthroughthe aouuty tax oolleotor or the oouuty in whlah he residesfor the registrationof eaoh suoh vehloleowned **or** oontrolledby him, or for a ohauffeur'slloense, f'or the ensuing or ourrent oalendaryear or uuexpired portion thereof.
. . .n It ~111 be noted inmediately that the present statute does not provide for the registration of motor vehicles in any county other than the county of resldenoeof the owner. It la, therefore, the opinion of t.his departmentthat Hr. Lawler, under the faots aet forth in your letter,mast register the vehicles operatedby the "Alamo **Freight** Lines* in Klable County,TOXML. Very truly **poure**

Assistant APPROVmm 14, lg4'
**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 connectionwith the Annual Report of EP Global Communications Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert J. Salluzzo, Chief Operating Officer (Chief Financial Officer)of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 

TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) 

Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed originalof this written statement has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff uponrequest.

Date: September 22, 2005

 

/s/ Robert J. Salluzzo

  

———————————————

  

Robert J. Salluzzo

  

Chief Operating Officer  (Chief Financial Officer)
Pamela Denise BOREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 27, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Ray, J.

In this single-issue appeal, Pamela Boren contends the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to hold a competency hearing or enter a written order of competency despite having reasonable grounds to believe she was incompetent to stand trial. The State properly concedes error.

Prior to trial, defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(b). As grounds for counsel's belief that Boren was not mentally competent to proceed, counsel alleged that Boren did not seem to *244"understand the roles of defense counsel, prosecutor, jury, and judge," had trouble communicating with counsel, and appeared unlikely to conduct herself appropriately at trial. Counsel also alleged that Boren reported she had been diagnosed as bipolar and was experiencing hallucinations. The trial court granted the motion and appointed an expert to examine Boren. The record is silent on what happened next regarding Boren's competency. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Boren guilty of the charged offenses.

Once a court "has reasonable grounds to question the defendant's competency, the court has no choice but to conduct a hearing to resolve the question." *Zern v. State* , 191 So.3d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; *see also* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(b) (requiring trial court to set a competency hearing within twenty days if defense counsel, the state, or the trial court has reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant is not mentally competent to proceed). The trial court is duty-bound at that point to make an independent determination of the defendant's competency and to enter a written order if the defendant is found competent to proceed. *Dougherty v. State* , 149 So.3d 672, 677-78 (Fla. 2014) ; *see also* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b). These requirements are designed "to safeguard a defendant's due process right to a fair trial and to provide the reviewing court with an adequate record on appeal." *Dougherty* , 149 So.3d at 676.

Here, nothing in the record shows that a hearing was held or that the trial court ruled on Boren's competency. We therefore remand for a retroactive determination, if possible. *Zern* , 191 So.3d at 965. If the court finds that Boren was competent at the time of trial, it should enter a *nunc pro tunc* order memorializing this finding with no change in the judgment or sentence. If a retroactive determination is not possible, or if the court finds that Boren was not competent, the court must hold a new trial provided that Boren is competent to proceed at that point in time.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

Roberts and Winsor, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Trend Mining Company (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P.
        Ryan, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) 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.
 
 September
        19, 2005
 
 /s/
        John P. Ryan John
        P.
        Ryan
 Principal
        Financial Officer
   76
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, John Vigouroux, Chief Executive Officer
of Valicert, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



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

|                       |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                      
|Dated:  March 17, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 517 

Congratulating the Columbus Crew for winning the 2023 Major League 

Soccer Cup. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 20, 2023 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VANCE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Columbus Crew for winning the 2023 

Major League Soccer Cup. 

Whereas, on December 9, 2023, the Columbus Crew defeated 

the Los Angeles Football Club by a score of 2 to 1 in 

Columbus, Ohio, in the 2023 Major League Soccer (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘MLS’’) Cup; 

Whereas the Columbus Crew have captured their third MLS 

Cup in franchise history and have brought the Philip F. 

Anschutz Trophy back to Columbus; 

Whereas every member of the 2023 Columbus Crew team 

played an integral role in bringing the MLS Cup to Columbus; 

Whereas the Columbus Crew’s fans set the franchise’s singleseason attendance record in 2023 and helped provide a 

2 

•SRES 517 ATS 

crucial home-field advantage in the playoffs and Cup 

Final; and 

Whereas the 2023 Columbus Crew have brought pride and 

elation to Columbus and the entire State of Ohio by winning the 2023 MLS Cup: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Columbus Crew for win3 ning the 2023 Major League Soccer Cup; 

4 (2) recognizes the contributions and achieve5 ments of all the players, coaches, and staff who con6 tributed to the 2023 season; 

7 (3) applauds the fans of the Columbus Crew; 

8 and 

9 (4) respectfully directs the Secretary of the 

10 Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolu11 tion to— 

12 (A) the president and general manager of 

13 the Columbus Crew, Central Ohio native Tim 

14 Bezbatchenko; 

15 (B) proud Ohioan and captain of the Co16 lumbus Crew, Darlington Nagbe; and 

17 (C) the board of directors of the Nordecke 

18 supporters collective, one of the great fan bases 

19 in Major League Soccer who helped ‘‘Save The 

20 Crew’’. 

Æ
Logan LOTT, Kirsten Lott, and the Royal Bakery, LLC v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH GOVERNMENT; Nova Casualty Insurance Company; ABC Insurance Company ; Amos Cormier, III; Edward Theriot; Stanley Wallace; Robert Barnett; DEF Insurance Company; John Barthelemy; Irvin Juneau; Benedict Rousselle; Charlie Burt ; Audrey Trufant-Salvant; and Nicole Smith Williams

NO. 2018-CC-2094

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IWOHoldings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Richard Harris, as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for thepurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

June 20, 2005

/s/ RICHARDHARRIS

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

RichardHarrisChief Financial Officer

----
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 557 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct 

quarterly blood donation drives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 

Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. QUARTERLY SENATE BLOOD DONATION 

3 DRIVES. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—During calendar year 2024, 

6 the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate 

7 (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Sergeant at 

8 Arms’’) is authorized to conduct a blood donation 

9 drive once every quarter, in accordance with para10 graphs (2) and (3). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 557 ATS 

1 (2) DATE SELECTION.—The Sergeant at Arms 

2 shall, in consultation with the Committee on Rules 

3 and Administration of the Senate, select the date for 

4 each drive conducted under paragraph (1). 

5 (3) SELECTION OF LOCATIONS AND

6 PARTNERING BLOOD DONATION ORGANIZATIONS.— 

7 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Sergeant at Arms 

8 shall identify and, with the approval of the 

9 Committee on Rules and Administration of the 

10 Senate, select a location and a partnering blood 

11 donation organization for each drive conducted 

12 under paragraph (1). 

13 (B) MEMBER REQUESTS.—In identifying 

14 appropriate partnering blood donation organiza15 tions under subparagraph (A), the Sergeant at 

16 Arms may consider a request from a Senator 

17 for a specific blood donation organization. 

18 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Physical preparations for 

19 the conduct of, and the implementation of, each drive au20 thorized under subsection (a)(1) shall be carried out in 

21 accordance with such conditions as the Sergeant at Arms, 

22 in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Adminis23 tration of the Senate, may prescribe. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Leonard PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Daniel MORGAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0435

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 564 

Honoring the memories of the victims of the senseless attack at Marjory 

Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 12), 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the memories of the victims of the senseless attack 

at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 

14, 2018. 

Whereas, on February 14, 2018, a mass shooting that took 

the lives of 17 teachers and students took place at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; 

Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for 

the individuals who were affected by this tragedy; 

Whereas the Parkland community has shown strength, compassion, and unity over the past 6 years; and 

Whereas February 14, 2024, marks 6 years since the horrific 

attack: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 564 ATS 

1 (1) honors the memories of the victims of the 

2 senseless attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High 

3 School on February 14, 2018, and offers heartfelt 

4 condolences and deepest sympathies to the families, 

5 loved ones, and friends of the victims; 

6 (2) honors the survivors of the attack and 

7 pledges continued support for their recovery; 

8 (3) recognizes the strength and resilience of the 

9 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community; 

10 and 

11 (4) expresses gratitude to the emergency med12 ical and health care professionals of the Parkland 

13 community for their efforts in responding to the at14 tack and caring for the victims and survivors. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2021252EN.01000502.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/5

---

Appeal brought on 22 October 2020 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2020 in Case T-807/19, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-539/20 P)

(2021/C 252/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Christopher Lee PRICE v. STATE

CR-16-0785

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Reagan ULYSSE, Sr., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT and Alberlean Surnetta Louisa Pollard Ulysse, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2043

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lloyd F. BEHRENDT a/k/a Lloyd Francis Behrendt a/k/a Lloyd Francis Christopher Behrendt Individually and as Trustee of the Lloyd Francis Behrendt Trust U.T.D. 11th Day of August 2002, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2445

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
AIRCRAFT BRAKING FRICTION (RPD 147)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTALS:

*
How to release your pilot records to a potential employer 

using the Pilot Records Database (PRD) 

1) Visit prd.faa.gov and click on the “Pilot Access” button.

2) Login via your MyAccess account or create a new one if you don’t already have one.

(See the Note at the end of this guide.)

3) Register in PRD if you have not already done so. Be sure to enter your PILOT certificate

number and date of issuance; not any other certificate such as CFI. (See the Note at the

end of this guide.)

4) Once in the PRD, you can review the information contained in the PRD for you.

5) Click on the “Experience” option from the menu bar.

6) Enter your current and/or former employers for which you were employed as a pilot

within the previous five years, at a minimum. Select an employer from the Employer list

and if not found, click the “Add New Employer” button to manually enter the employer.

7) Click the “Consent” option from the menu bar.

8) Start typing the name of the employer and select it from the list when it appears. Be

careful to enter the correct name. If not sure, ask the employer what to select.
9) Specify how many days to release the records then press “Grant Consent”. Let the employer know the records are available via the PRD.

Note: If you cannot access the PRD to grant consent for any reason, submit a FAA Form 

8060-14 to grant consent to the employer. 

Support questions can be sent to PRDsupport@faa.gov.