alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020061EN.01005001.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/50

---

Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-857/19)

(2020/C 61/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 October 2019 concerning a measure giving effect to the judgment of 20 September 2019, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union, T-433/17, EU:T:2019:632), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the contested decision was not an appropriate measure to comply with the judgment in Case T-433/17, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the contested decision was not an appropriate measure to comply with the judgment in Case T-433/17, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Court of 2016 on access to administrative documents, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Court of 2016 on access to administrative documents, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration, including the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration, including the duty to state reasons.

---
David KIMBROUGH v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0358

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Angus KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1833

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

 

ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.

 

Section 1350 Certification

 

The undersigned hereby certify that this report of Orient-ExpressHotels Ltd. for the periods presented fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods presented in the report.

 

 
| /s/ P.M. White                                   |   | /s/ M. O’Grady                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul M. WhitePresident  and  Chief Executive  Officer |   | Martin O’GradyVice  President – Finance and  Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

Dated:  November 10,2008

 

 

[A signed original of this written certification has been provided toOrient-Express Hotels Ltd. and will be retained by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.]
Charles ADAMS, Appellant, v. Claudine ADAMS, Appellee.

No. 4D18-264

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 20, 2019]

Andrea Cox and John A. Turner of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Miami, for appellant.

Steven M. Katzman and Craig A. Rubinstein of Katzman, Wasserman, Bennardini & Rubinstein, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

Gerber, C.J.

The former husband appeals from the circuit court's "Second Order on True-Up/Equalizing Payment" and the circuit court's later order denying the former husband's "Motion for Rehearing of Second Order on True-Up/Equalizing Payment." The former husband primarily argued in the motion for rehearing that the "Second Order," entered eight months after the evidentiary hearing on which the order was based, did not credit certain expenses *209which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing, up to the time the "Second Order" was entered and thereafter.

We affirm the "Second Order," because until the former husband filed his motion for rehearing, the former husband had not requested the circuit court to credit certain expenses which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing up to the time the "Second Order" was entered and thereafter.

However, because the motion for rehearing ultimately raised this request, the circuit court erred in summarily denying the motion, which appears to merely seek relief consistent with the findings and conclusions in the "Second Order," that is, credit for certain expenses which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing, up to the time the "Second Order" was entered and thereafter.

We remand for the circuit court to reconsider the former husband's motion for rehearing on its merits. We caution the parties and the circuit court that any order entered on the motion for rehearing should address credit to be given for any future payments beyond that order as well, rather than perpetuating piecemeal disposition and appeals of future payments.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.*

Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements (Nos. 333-45182, 333-54870, 333-63000, 333-72322, 333-85230, 333-85238, 333-103395, 333-116726, 333-121000, 333-129282, 333-137301, 333-147406, and 333-159291) on Form S-8 of Lantronix, Inc. of our report dated September
24, 2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lantronix, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2009.








/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





Irvine, California


September 24, 2009
# C_2020161EN.01003701.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 24 February 2020 — Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-90/20)

(2020/C 161/48)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Must Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that control fees for infringement of regulations on parking on private property constitute consideration for a service supplied and that there is therefore a transaction subject to VAT?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 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 1135 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-918, K2025-919.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31103 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Amos TAMBUNGA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1173

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Reginald FRIENDLY v. STATE

CR-16-0826

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Kinship Systems, Inc. now known as
Caribbean Clubs International, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Mr. Terry Deru, President and
Mr. Andrew Limpert, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of our knowledge, 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/  Terry Deru
                             ___________________________________
                             Mr. Terry Deru
                             President


                             /s/  Andrew Limpert
                             ___________________________________
                             Mr. Andrew Limpert
                             Chief Financial Officer
# C_2020279EN.01003501.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl

(Case C-255/20)

(2020/C 279/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta

Respondent: Punto Nautica Srl

Question referred

Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down in Case C-82/12, and Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC, (1) be interpreted as precluding the provisions of Italian law currently in force as set out in Article 17 of Legislative Decree No 398 of 21 December 1990 and in Article 3(1) of Lazio Regional Law ... No 19 of 2011, which appear to introduce a regional tax on transport petrol which is not for ‘specific purposes’ as required by the abovementioned Community directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

---
# C_2022024EN.01000801.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others

(Case C-413/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew - Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I - Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence - Flying training - Instrument ground time - Calculation - Simulator training - Skill test - Principle of legal certainty - Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 24/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time;

| 2. | Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph G. ALVAREZ, Esq., Nicholas Matassini, Esq. & The Matassini Law Firm, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1830

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Sharrod M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4297

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2022084EN.01001801.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

(Case C-497/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Judgment of a Member State’s highest administrative court declaring inadmissible, in breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice, an action brought by a tenderer excluded from a public procurement procedure - No remedy against that judgment before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

(2022/C 84/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Randstad Italia SpA

Defendants: Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of a Member State’s domestic law which, according to national case-law, has the effect that individual parties, such as tenderers who participated in a procedure for the award of a public contract, cannot challenge the conformity with EU law of a judgment of the highest court in the administrative order of that Member State by means of an appeal before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 32

             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 Cygni Investments,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and
principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 results
          of operations of the Company.


Date:  August 16, 2004

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Mike Zuliani, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A
     of World Wide Web, Inc.;

  2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
     quarterly report; and

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

  4.The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
     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 us by others within
       those entities, particularly during the period in which this
       quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
       our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

  5.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     disclosed, based on our 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.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
     that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
     to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
     corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
     material weaknesses.

Date:  September 29, 2003

/s/ Mike Zuliani
    ------------
    Chief Executive Officer