alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021182EN.01002401.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24

---

Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Stadtapotheke E v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

(Case C-378/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to a fair trial - Application for a licence for a new pharmacy - Obligation to request an expert opinion from the chamber of pharmacists - Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Conditions for the establishment of a new pharmacy - Proportionality - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2021/C 182/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadtapotheke E

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

Intervener: AW

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria) by decision of 10 August 2020.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---
## 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

              - alaska(2)
              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Science Animations        November 30, 2018        Shaking of Atwood Building, Mw 7.0 November 30, 2018, Anchorage quake

Policy and Directives        October 24, 2018        National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Collection Policy

Science Animations        March 30, 2016        Shaking in the Atwood Building in Anchorage, Alaska
### 1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MA STERS

No. 17

- 477V

Filed: December 7, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

RUBEN ABEYTA, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Transverse Myelitis ( “ TM ” );

v. * Influenza ( “ Flu ” ) Vaccine

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald C. Homer, Esq.

, Conway , Homer, P.C ., Boston

, MA

, for petitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock

, Esq

. , US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Roth

, Special Master:

On April 4, 2017

, Ruben Abeyta [ “ Mr

. Abeyta or “petitioner”] filed a petition for

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner allege s that

he developed Transverse M yelitis ( “ TM ” ) after receiving the influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine on October

28, 2014

. Stipulation, filed Dec. 7, 2018 , at ¶¶ 1

- 4. Respondent denies that any of the

afore mentioned immunizati on s caused petitioner ’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 4 4 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision

will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Sta t. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).

### 2

Nevertheless, the parties h ave agreed to settle the case. On December 7, 2018 , the parties

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Responde nt agrees to issue the fol lowing payment :

A lump sum of $215,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ruben

Abeyta

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would b e av ailable

under § 300aa

- 15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipula tion attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and

on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance

with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice

renouncing the right to seek review.
# C_2022244EN.01000801.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře — Czech Republic) — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace

(Case C-453/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFUE - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria relating to the constitution and function of that body - Exercise of judicial or administrative functions - Directive 2012/34/EU - Articles 55 and 56 - Single national regulatory body for the railway sector - Independent regulatory authority for the sector - Entitlement to act on an ex officio basis - Power to impose penalties - Decisions that are open to challenge before the courts - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 244/09)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CityRail a.s.

Defendant: Správa železnic, státní organizace

Intervening party: ČD Cargo a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Transport infrastructure access authority, Czech Republic) is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
STATE EX REL. Terrance BURTON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1915

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. *See* *State v. Counterman* , 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. *State v. Crosby* , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
----

EXHIBIT 31.1 

I, Michael Lee, chief executive officer of AlphaRx, certify that: 

> 
1. I have reviewed this annual report on  Form 10-KSB/A of AlphaRx, Inc.; 
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does  not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a  material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the  circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with  respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial  statements, and other financial information included in this annual report,  fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of  operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods  presented in this annual report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and    procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others    within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual    report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the    registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days    prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and    

c) presented in this annual report my    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and    procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

5. We have disclosed, based on my most recent  evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of  registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent  functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have    identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal    controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that    involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant's internal controls; and 

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether  there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that  could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most  recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

Date: May 18, 2005 

/s/ Michael Lee 

Michael Lee, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.43
 16 November 2007
 UNICOM NEW HORIZON MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY LIMITED
and
CHINA UNITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION LIMITED
and
CHINA UNITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
and
CHINA UNICOM CORPORATION LIMITED
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
to
NETWORK CAPACITY LEASE AGREEMENT




---



##### 



CONTENTS
 CLAUSE
    
    PAGE1.
    
    Interpretation
    
    
    22.
    
    Extension of Listed Service Area
    
    
    23.
    
    Other incidental amendments
    
    
    34.
    
    Transfer
    
    
    35.
    
    Severability
    
    
    36.
    
    Further assurance
    
    
    37.
    
    Costs
    
    
    38.
    
    Waivers and Variations
    
    
    49.
    
    Entire Agreement
    
    
    410.
    
    Settlement of Disputes
    
    
    411.
    
    Language
    
    
    5




---



##### 



THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN
 UNICOM NEW HORIZON MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED th Lessor
 CHINA UNITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LIMITED th Lessee
 CHINA UNITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION Unicom Group
 CHINA UNICOM CORPORATION LIMITED th CUCL
 WHEREAS
 Network Capacity Lease Agreement
 Transfer Agreement
 Sale and Purchase Agreement




---



##### 



Supplemental Agreement Amended Lease Agreement
  IT IS AGREED
 Interpretation
   headings
 gender
 parties
 clauses schedules
  Extension of Listed Service Area
 Effective Time
 Listed Service Areas
  Listed Service Areas
 Page 2




---



##### 



Other incidental amendments
    Transfer
  Severability
  Further assurance
  Costs
   Page 3




---



##### 



Waivers and Variations
    Entire Agreement
  Settlement of Disputes
   CIETAC
  Page 4




---



##### 



Language
  IN WITNESS
 Page 5




---



##### 



By:
    /s/ Tong XiaoyuName:
    Tong
XiaoyuTitle:
    Chairman  By:
    /s/ Zhang JianName:
    Zhang
JianTitle:

Director
and Vice President  By:
    /s/ Chang XiaobingName:
    Chang
XiaobingTitle:
    Chairman  By:
    /s/ Tong JiluName:
    Tong
JiluTitle:

Director
and Vice General Manager
# C_2020329EN.01001303.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — O. v P. AG

(Case C-138/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/29)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
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 United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James McKeever,
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





Dated:    November
      16, 2009
            By:
            /s/ James
    McKeeverJames
      McKeeverInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022095EN.01000201.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2

---

Order of the Court of 1 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Pilsētas zemes dienests AS

(Case C-598/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(l) and Article 135(2) - Leasing and letting of immovable property - Exclusion from exemption of a compulsory land lease to owners of buildings - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 95/02)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pilsētas zemes dienests AS

Other party: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Operative part of the order

Article 135(1)(l) and Article 135(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the leasing of land under a compulsory lease scheme is excluded from the exemption from value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

1:30 p.m. on Friday, December 20, 2024.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: December 20, 2024.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-31060 Filed 12-20-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 24, 2018.

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, October 24, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0115. CHARLES F. DEJOURNETTE v. 55 PHARR ROAD CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV300509
---

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 Super Energy Investments
  Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
  30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Ni Jinrong, Chief 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:

(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/ Ni Jinrong Ni Jinrong Chief Financial Officer November
      13, 2003
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

In re:

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON JUDGE and 

RAQUELLE ANN JUDGE 

Debtor(s)

_____________________________ 

KRISTIN NEWMAN,

Plaintiff

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON JUDGE,

ET AL.,

Defendants

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO.: 23-41465-ELM7 

__________________________________ 

ADVERSARY NO.: 23-04066-ELM 

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DOCKET CALL

AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Continuance and Request for a 

New Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 10] (the "Motion"). Having considered the Motion, and 

the Defendants being unopposed to the requested relief, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as provided herein; it is further

ORDERED that trial docket call ("Docket Call") for this adversary proceeding will be 

held on February 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. (prevailing Central Time), before the Honorable 

Edward L. Morris, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, at the Eldon B. Mahon U.S. Courthouse, 501 W. 

Tenth Street, Room 204, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 and by WebEx videoconference at the 

following address: https://us-courts.webex.com/meet/morris; it is further

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Signed July 30, 2024

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-04066-elm Doc 11 Filed 07/30/24 Entered 07/30/24 10:22:21 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

 ORDERED that the trial of this adversary proceeding will be set at the Docket Call; and it 

is further

 ORDERED that all pretrial deadlines applicable to this adversary proceeding shall be 

recalculated in accordance with paragraph 7 of Part III of the Order Regarding Adversary 

Proceedings Trial Setting and Alternative Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 4].

# # # End of Order # # #

Case 23-04066-elm Doc 11 Filed 07/30/24 Entered 07/30/24 10:22:21 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Timothy Lee YOUNG v. STATE

CR-16-0521

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.