alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021228EN.01002902.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/29

---

Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — CRII-GEN and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Active substance glyphosate - Request for review for the purpose of withdrawing or amending the approval - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Rejection - Act not open to challenge)

(2021/C 228/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRII-GEN) (Paris, France), and the 6 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, G. Gattinara, I. Nagalis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2020 rejecting the applicants’ request, made under Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1), to withdraw or amend the approval of active substance glyphosate.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Bayer Agriculture BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Bayer Agriculture BV.

| 3. | The Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRII-GEN) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Bayer Agriculture relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRII-GEN) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Bayer Agriculture relating to its application for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Bayer Agriculture shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Bayer Agriculture shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
# C_2020348EN.01001001.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 10 August 2020 — Liberty Seguros SA v DR

(Case C-375/20)

(2020/C 348/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liberty Seguros SA

Defendant: DR

Interveners: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, VS, FN, JT, Seguradoras Unidas, SA

Question referred

Does [EU] law, and in particular Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, preclude national legislation which allows the nullity of a contract of insurance taken out against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles to be relied on as against injured third parties and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Portuguese motor vehicle insurance guarantee fund) where that nullity results from the fact that the policyholder has used the insured vehicle for the clandestine and illegal transport of persons and goods for remuneration and has concealed its use for that purpose from the insurer? Would the answer be the same even if the passengers had known that the transport was clandestine and unlawful?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

---
# C_2023035EN.01004801.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission

(Case T-275/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for prestressing steel - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee - Payment by instalments on a provisional basis - Judgment annulling in part the decision and setting a fine in an amount identical to the amount of the fine originally imposed - Application of payments made on a provisional basis - Default interest - First paragraph of Article 266 TFEU - Unjust enrichment - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Recovery of undue payments - No legal basis - Unlawfulness)

(2023/C 35/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Hamm, Germany), Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hamm), Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: O. Duys and N. Tkatchenko, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and L. Mantl, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action, the applicants seek, principally, (i), the annulment, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, of the European Commission’s letter of 2 March 2020 by which it gave them formal notice to pay it the sum of EUR 12 236 931,69, corresponding, according to the Commission, to the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on them on 30 September 2010; (ii), a finding that the fine was paid in full on 17 October 2019 by the payment of EUR 18 149 636,24; and, (iii), an order that the Commission pay WDI the sum of EUR 1 633 085,17, plus interest from that latter date, on account of unjust enrichment on the part of that institution. In the alternative, the applicants request under Article 268 TFEU that the Commission be ordered to pay them the sum of EUR 12 236 931,69, claimed by the Commission from the applicant WDI, and a sum equivalent to the amount of overpayment to that institution of EUR 1 633 085,17, plus interest as of 17 October 2019, until the repayment in full of the amount owed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
John SCOTT, Petitioner, v. LEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-3532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Stubbs, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of CallWave, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of CallWave, Inc.



|                        |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |       
|Date: February 12, 2007 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark Stubbs        
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Mark Stubbs            
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

J. GUADALUPE BRAVO-MENDOZA,

AKA Daniel G. Bravo, AKA Guadalupe

Bravo-Mendoza,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50399

D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00036-JVS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit

Judges.

Bravo-Mendoza’s waiver of counsel complied with Faretta v. California,

422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). He was advised of, and acknowledged that he

understood, the charges, potential sentence, and risks of self-representation. 

United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 506-07 (9th Cir. 2008). 

FILED

FEB 15 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 177-78 (2008), does not require that a

district court conduct a hearing to determine whether a defendant who is competent

to stand trial is also competent to represent himself at trial. Rather, Edwards

permits the trial court to deny a defendant his constitutional right to selfrepresentation if the defendant is so severely mentally ill that he is unable to carry

out the basic tasks necessary for self-representation. See United States v.

Thompson, 587 F.3d 1165, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ferguson,

560 F.3d 1060, 1070 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009). Despite Bravo-Mendoza’s odd

comments, the record establishes that he was able to represent himself. He made

peremptory challenges during voir dire, cross-examined witnesses, presented a

defense, introduced documents, testified, made a closing argument, made

appropriate and timely motions for judgment of acquittal, and argued that his prior

convictions were too old to be considered by the court at sentencing. BravoMendoza was also assisted by, and frequently consulted with, competent stand-by

counsel throughout the proceedings. The district court correctly respected BravoMendoza’s right to represent himself; furthermore, the record does not establish

that Bravo-Mendoza was denied a fair trial. 

AFFIRMED.
Becki Ruth MAAS and Ryan D. Maas, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO. AMERICAS, as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0329

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
OFFICE OF THE STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

6851 N.E. Loop 820, Suite 300

North Richland Hills, TX 76180-6608

(817) 770-8500

Fax (817) 770-8511

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE:

DAVID LYN LUTTRELL

Case No: 24-41512-MXM

Court Hearing:

Time & Date: 8:30 AM on

Debtor, Thursday, July 18, 2024

TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARK X MULLIN, U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Now comes Tim Truman, the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, and files this his "Trustee's Objection to 

Confirmation" of the Plan heretofore filed herein by Debtor, and for the same would respectfully show the 

Court as follows:

The Plan fails to meet the "feasibility" requirements of 11 U.S.C. Section 1325 (a) (6) of the Bankruptcy 

Code. In this regard, the Trustee would show that the Debtor's proposed Plan provides for the following plan 

payments: 

DEBTOR PAY SCHEDULE NO. 1 (DAVID LYN LUTTRELL)

PAYMENTS BEGINNING: 05/31/2024 FOR 60 MONTHS IN THE AMOUNT OF: $1,746.00 

The Debtor's monthly surplus per Schedules I and J is $1,780.82. Therefore, the Plan does not appear to be 

feasible for that reason, and for the following reason(s) if any:

 DAVID LYN LUTTRELL has not provided the Trustee with current pay stubs, a current Profit & Loss 

Statement, or other income verification to support the income information reflected on Schedule I. Until the 

financial affairs of the Debtor are more completely documented and examined, the Trustee is unable to 

recommend Confirmation of the Plan.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Trustee prays that said Plan not be confirmed unless 

and until it has been modified to cure all objections set forth hereinabove, and for general relief.

Case 24-41512-mxm13 Doc 19 Filed 06/06/24 Entered 06/06/24 13:51:01 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
24-41512-MXM DAVID LYN LUTTRELL

Trustee's Objection to Confirmation Page 2

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Angela D. Allen

Tim Truman, Bar # 20258000

Standing Chapter 13 Trustee

Angela Allen, Bar # 007869700

Staff Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Trustee's Objection to Confirmation" was 

served on all parties listed below in the manner listed below on or before June 07, 2024.

 /s/ Angela D. Allen

Tim Truman, Angela Allen

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL:

DAVID LYN LUTTRELL, 2209 PONTIAC DR, ARLINGTON, TX 76013-0000

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE:

NORRED LAW PLLC, 515 E BORDER, ARLINGTON, TX 76010

POPE HARDWICKE CHRISTIE SCHELL KELLY & TAPLETT, 500 W 7TH ST STE 600, FORT WORTH, TX 76102

LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, 2777 N STEMMONS FWY #1000, DALLAS, TX 75207

United States Trustee, 1100 COMMERCE STREET, ROOM 976, DALLAS, TX 75242

Case 24-41512-mxm13 Doc 19 Filed 06/06/24 Entered 06/06/24 13:51:01 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 53 

Establishing a Women’s Bill of Rights to reaffirm legal protections afforded 

to women under Federal law. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH (for herself, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CRUZ, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. LEE, 

and Mrs. BRITT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing a Women’s Bill of Rights to reaffirm legal 

protections afforded to women under Federal law. 

Whereas males and females possess unique and immutable biological differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as they age and experience puberty; 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes mean that 

only females may get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed 

children; 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes mean that 

males are, on average, larger in size and possess greater 

body strength than females; 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes can expose 

females to more harm than males from specific forms of 

violence, including sexual violence; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 53 IS 

Whereas women have achieved inspirational and significant 

accomplishments in education, athletics, and employment; 

and 

Whereas recent misguided court rulings related to the definition of ‘‘sex’’ have led to endangerment of spaces and resources dedicated to women, thereby necessitating clarification of certain terms: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate reaffirms that— 

2 (1) for the purposes of Federal law, the ‘‘sex’’ 

3 of an individual means his or her biological sex (ei4 ther male or female) at birth; 

5 (2) for the purposes of Federal laws addressing 

6 sex, the terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘girl’’ refer to human 

7 females, and the terms ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘boy’’ refer to 

8 human males; 

9 (3) for the purposes of Federal law, the word 

10 ‘‘mother’’ means a parent of the female sex and ‘‘fa11 ther’’ is defined as a parent of the male sex; 

12 (4) there are important reasons to distinguish 

13 between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons, 

14 domestic violence shelters, restrooms, and other 

15 areas, particularly where biology, safety, and privacy 

16 are implicated; 

17 (5) policies and laws that distinguish between 

18 the sexes are subject to intermediate constitutional 

19 scrutiny and permitted when they serve an imporVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:15 Feb 10, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR53.IS SR53

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 53 IS 

1 tant governmental objective and are substantially re2 lated to achieving that objective; and 

3 (6) for the purposes of complying with Federal 

4 laws that require State and local government agen5 cies to collect or report data disaggregated by sex, 

6 such as Federal antidiscrimination laws, agencies 

7 are required to base such data on the biological sex 

8 of individuals at birth. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32

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


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of the registrant certifies, to the best of
his or her knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-
QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant.

Date: August 8, 2003

/s/ Fed W. Jackson, Jr.
Fred W. Jackson, Jr.
President,
Chief Executive Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023035EN.01000601.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, IG, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers, CD, JU v Vlaamse Regering

(Case C-694/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Mandatory automatic exchange of information in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements - Directive 2011/16/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/822 - Article 8ab(5) - Validity - Legal professional privilege of the lawyer - Exemption from the reporting obligation for the benefit of lawyer-intermediaries subject to legal professional privilege - Obligation on that lawyer-intermediary to notify any other intermediary who is not his or her client of that intermediary’s reporting obligations - Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 35/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies, IG, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers, CD, JU

Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8ab(5) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018, is invalid in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Member States’ application of that provision has the effect of requiring a lawyer acting as an intermediary, within the meaning of Article 3(21) of that directive, as amended, where he or she is exempt from the reporting obligation laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 8ab of that directive, as amended, on account of the legal professional privilege by which he or she is bound, to notify without delay any other intermediary who is not his or her client of that intermediary’s reporting obligations under paragraph 6 of that Article 8ab.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2022237EN.01001101.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-612/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum - Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)

(2022/C 237/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Happy Education SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘organisation recognised as having similar objects’ to those of an educational body governed by public law, for the purposes of that provision, does not cover a private entity which carries out teaching activities in the public interest consisting of, inter alia, the organisation of activities supplementing the school curriculum, such as homework support classes, educational programmes and foreign language classes, and which has obtained authorisation from the National Trade Register Office in the form of the attribution of the CAEN code 8559 — ‘Other education n.e.c.’, within the meaning of the Classification of National Economic Activities, where that entity does not, in any event, satisfy the conditions under national law for obtaining such recognition.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Posters        December 31, 2004        Oceanography Beyond the Golden Gate
EX PARTE D'Shaun IVORY

CR-16-0868

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Deborah STEELE, Petitioner, v. AMR AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick CMS, Respondents.

No. 1D18-691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.