alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021452EN.01002802.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-104/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P Hix and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.38 percent for the January-March quarter of FY 2025.

Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.

David Parrish,

Chief, Secondary Market Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-31199 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from  Pinecrest  Services,  Inc.  September 30, 2000 financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                    1115975
<NAME>                   Pinecrest Services, Inc.
<CURRENCY>               US



<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>             SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>          1.00

<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     30,000
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (47,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              0
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-BASIC>                               .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .00



</TABLE>
Russell A. ROGERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Wayne MILINER v. STATE

CR-16-0384

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong Yuk Ping, CFO and a director 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:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Eppie Wong Yuk Ping



Eppie Wong Yuk Ping,

Principal Accounting Officer and a director

November 14, 2005
# C_2021053EN.01004201.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/42

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-255/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Comitology - Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles - Agenda for the 79th meeting of the committee - Right to information applicable in the Member States of the European Union as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 53/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Kenny, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission of 26 February 2020 refusing to grant access to certain parts of the minutes of the 79th meeting of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles of 12 February 2019.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
|   | (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 theCompany. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |                                       |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | /s/      John H. Homier                    |   |
|   |   |   | John      H. Homier                        |   |
|   |   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
S.M.K., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed as moot. Denied as moot.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(38)
              - products_data(7)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(221)
              - (-)products_software(2)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(25)
              - multimedia_image-141771(17)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(4)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(60)
              - multimedia_video-149194(48)
              - multimedia_video-149195(8)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - multimedia_video-149198(3)
              - multimedia_webcam(3)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(3)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - news_news-149245(5)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149250(4)
              - news_other_news(12)
              - other_basic-42(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - (-)california(2)
              - hawaii(1)
              - montana(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - washington(1)

## By Year

Software Release        April 13, 2017        Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst Tool

Software Release        August 26, 2012        Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM)
L.G. v. E.A. and V.A.

2160688

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

OMAR FRANCIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 188 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 14, 2023. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 14, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24I0060. RODERICK ALLEN AYCOX, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LESLIE VAIL AYCOX v. LEE KENNETH PARTISS, III.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Probate Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: PC2022001427
**Exhibit
      99.7**




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 Axcan Pharma Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        40-F for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Frank A.G.M.
        Verwiel, President and Chief Executive 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:
  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 result of operations of the
                Company.   /s/
        Dr. Frank A.G.M. Verwiel
 Dr.
        Frank
        A.G.M. Verwiel
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 December
        29, 2006
Mark E. COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2952

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Pegaso Energy Services LLC

Week 1 2 3 4 Cumulative

Date (Week Ending) 7/27/2024 8/3/2024 8/10/2024 8/17/2024

Cash Flow

Revenue

Well Service Revenue $20,000 $65,000 $120,000 $120,000 $325,000

Gain on Sale of Equipment $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $500,000

Total Revenue $20,000 $165,000 $320,000 $320,000 $825,000

Receipts

Factored WS Tickets $15,000 $45,000 $80,000 $100,000

Asset Sale $100,000 $200,000 $200,000

Total Receipts $ 15,000.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 280,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $740,000

Disbursements

Cost of Sales

Fuel $1,200 $7,500 $10,000 $12,000

Trucking $1,500 $3,000 $3,000

Equipment Rental $ -

Lodging

 Total Cost of Sales $38,200

Payroll & Related Expenses

Field Payroll & Taxes $12,000 $15,000 $30,000 $40,000

SGA Payroll & Taxes $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Subcontractors

 Total Payroll & Related $114,500

Operating Expenses

Credit Cards

Fleet Maintenance

Insurance $40,000

Building Rent $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500

Sales Tax

Subscriptions

Utilities, Internet, Phone $200 $200 $200 $200

Repairs & Maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Safety Supplies $300 $300 $300 $1,500

 Total Operating Expenses $61,200

Restructuring Professional Fees

Company Legal Fees

U.S. Trustee

 Total Restructuring Professional Fees

Total Disbursements

Net Cash Flow $611,100

Pegaso Energy

ServicesExhibit

O

Case No. 24-42429

Case 24-42429-mxm11 Doc 24-1 Filed 07/21/24 Entered 07/21/24 08:49:22 Desc

Exhibit O - Proposed DIP Budget Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1168 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-954, K2025-954.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31157 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Matthew Lee RILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99(a)

Household Finance Corporation
Household Automotive Trust V   (2000-2)
---------------------------------------


Original Principal Class A
   Class A-1                             143,000,000
   Class A-2                             157,000,000
   Class A-3                             172,000,000
   Class A-4                             183,211,000
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)
   Class A-1                                 143,000
   Class A-2                                 157,000
   Class A-3                                 172,000
   Class A-4                                 183,211


Distribution Date                                                  2002 Totals
Days

CLASS A
Class A-1 Principal Distribution                                            0.00
Class A-1 Interest Distribution                                             0.00

Class A-2 Principal Distribution                                   23,996,095.09
Class A-2 Interest Distribution                                       209,644.04

Class A-3 Principal Distribution                                  120,038,555.47
Class A-3 Interest Distribution                                     8,920,565.20

Class A-4 Principal Distribution                                            0.00
Class A-4 Interest Distribution                                    13,612,577.28
# C_2021035EN.01002401.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — J.P. v B.d.S.L.

(Case C-521/20)

(2021/C 35/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: J.P.

Defendant authority: B.d.S.L.

Question referred

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (in particular in conjunction with the Eurovignette Directive 1999/62/EC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the combination of national rules which — as in the case of Paragraph 20(2) of the BStMG in conjunction with Paragraph 22(2) of the VStG — requires the cumulative prosecution and punishment of serial breaches of the obligation to pay tolls committed on separate stretches of road is contrary to the prohibition of multiple prosecution and punishment if there is not simultaneously, at the legislative level, both an obligation of coordination for all the authorities and courts competent to conduct such proceedings and an explicit obligation to apply the principle of proportionality effectively in relation to the amount of the overall penalty?

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(2)
              - 2023(2)
              - 2022(17)

staff profileRoger Borcherdt

staff profileAdrian M Bender
Stuart P. SEIDER, an individual, Jeffrey A. Stevens, an individual, and Seider and Stevens, P.A., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. Jarred LEIBNER, Respondent.

No. 4D18-3363

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 27, 2019]

Jacqueline G. Emanuel and Stephen E. Knoerr of Knoerr & Emanuel, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Jarred Leibner, Miami, pro se.

Per Curiam.

*1190Two dentists and their professional association seek review of a trial court order that denied their motion to dismiss. They argue the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint because the plaintiff failed to comply with the presuit requirements for bringing a medical malpractice action under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2017). We agree, grant the petition, and quash the order.

We have jurisdiction because the trial court failed to afford the procedural protections of the medical malpractice statute. *See**Williams v. Oken* , 62 So.3d 1129, 1134-35 (Fla. 2011).

The plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that the dentists performed unnecessary procedures and misrepresented the status of the plaintiff's failing dental implant. Each count adopts paragraphs 1 through 90, which contain medical malpractice allegations. As argued by the dentists, several counts seek damages arising from medical treatment that implicate the professional standard of care.

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in concluding the plaintiff's claims concern only billing and collection practices-such that the presuit requirements of Chapter 766 do not apply. As pleaded, the Second Amended Complaint sounds in medical malpractice.

For these reasons, we grant the petition, quash the order denying the motion to dismiss, and remand the case to the trial court to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff may either amend the complaint to eliminate the medical malpractice allegations or comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2017).1

*Petition granted.*

May, Ciklin and Conner, JJ., concur.

1

We express no opinion on whether a medical malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
Austin Blake PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1238

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.