alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021357EN.01002301.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — IN v EISMEA

(Case T-119/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Appraisal - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment - Reasonable time - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 357/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IN (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of 15 April 2019 not to renew the applicant’s contract and of the latter’s appraisal for the year 2018 as finalised on 3 June 2019 and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (EISMEA) to pay to IN the amount of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Innovation Council and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Executive Agency (EISMEA) to pay to IN the amount of EUR 3 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Richard D. HORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3228

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021028EN.01002002.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — AP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-529/20)

(2021/C 28/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AP

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
EX PARTE Labarron PERKINS, Sr.

CR-16-1036

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0353 STATE OF MONTANA,

P laintiff and Appellee , v. ROBERT EARL STAUDENMAYER ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of

A ppellee ’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including May 2 6 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2023

04/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0353
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

§

§ CASE NO. 24-42003-MXM-7 

§

Big Horn Construction & 

Reclamation LLC

Debtor(s) §

TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF

STATUS TO THE CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT:

The above entitled and numbered proceeding was originally noticed as a no-asset case.

No claims bar date has been established. There now appear to be assetsto be administered and I 

hereby request that the status of this proceeding be changed to an asset case. Please establish a 

bar date and notify creditors to file a Proof of Claim.

Date: October 23, 2024 /s/ Marilyn D. Garner

Marilyn D. Garner, Trustee
VANACORE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Alfred A. BARTHOLOMEW and Phyllis L. Bartholomew, a Married Couple, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-1669

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

Thomas E. Jablonski, Robert M. Klein, Houston S. Park III and Andrew M. Feldman, of Klein Glasser Park & Lowe, P.L., Miami, for Appellant.

William Douglas Stanford, Jr., Peter A. Robertson and Thomas J. Tollefsen, of The Robertson Firm, St. Augustine, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons expressed in *Vanacore Construction, Inc. v. Osborn* , 260 So.3d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), we reverse and remand.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Jay BARRINGER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3297

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
ICAO Airplane CO2 Emissions Standard :

February 10th, 2016

16 February 2016

Page ‹#›

1

ICAO Airplane CO2 Emissions Standard

Agreed applicability dates and regulatory limits:

“New Type” standard

Applicable to new aeroplane types which apply for certification on or after 1 January 2020, except those aeroplane types with a passenger seat capacity of less than or equal to 19 which have an applicability date of 1 January 2023.

“In-Production” standard

Applicable to newly produced in-production aeroplanes initially via a change criteria on or after 1 January 2023 and followed by a production cut-off from 1 January 2028.

Applies to airplanes weighing greater than Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM):

Subsonic jets... 5.7 metric tonnes (12,566 pounds)

Propeller-driven... 8.6 metric tonnes (19k pounds)

Exemptions criteria agreed to provide flexibility for low volume production aeroplane types in exceptional circumstances. 

16 February 2016

Page ‹#›

2

In Production (InP) and New Type (NT)

In Production (InP) CAEP/10 

New Type (NT) CAEP/10 

Better

16 February 2016

Page ‹#›

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image1.png
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 310 

Recognizing the Motorcycle Safety Foundation for 50 years of safety 

education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2023 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BUDD, Ms. ERNST, Mr. TILLIS, 

and Mr. CASEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Motorcycle Safety Foundation for 50 years 

of safety education. 

Whereas, in 1973, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation began 

creating the first motorcycle rider safety training curriculum in the United States; 

Whereas the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is a nonprofit organization providing motorcycle rider training and education; 

Whereas the Motorcycle Safety Foundation meets the needs 

of motorcycle riders by continuing to create courses for 

the most popular bikes on the road and on the trail, including the hands-on Adventure Bike Rider Course and 

the Dirtbike School courses, that enable motorcycle riders 

to get the most out of their bikes; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 310 IS 

Whereas new and experienced riders can benefit from learning basic motorcycle controls, safe-riding habits, and 

street strategies in a comprehensive, research-based curriculum created by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation; 

Whereas 10,000,000 motorcyclists have taken the Basic 

Rider Course taught by Motorcycle Safety Foundation 

rider coaches in the last 50 years; 

Whereas 46 States and the Armed Forces use Motorcycle 

Safety Foundation curriculum as their motorcycle license 

waiver course; 

Whereas nearly 10,000 rider coaches teach Motorcycle Safety 

Foundation curriculum at 2,700 training sites across the 

United States; and 

Whereas the efforts of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation are 

aimed at making the roadways of the United States safer 

for both motorcycle riders and non-riders: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the Motorcycle 

2 Safety Foundation for 50 years of safety education and 

3 improving the ride for motorcycle riders across the United 

4 States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE Anthony JONES

CR-16-0817

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Covonta MAGEE

NO. 2018-KO-0509

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

s0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137540

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137540 COA: 278093 Macomb CC: 2 006-003972-FC BYRON WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
John L. NORMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0149

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(3)
              - hawaii(25)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - (-)minnesota(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(4)

## By Year

              - 2022(1)

Photography  Minnesota River at Jordan
Sean JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 9, 2019]

Sean Jenkins, Orlando, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Mayes v. Moore* , 827 So.2d 967, 971 (Fla. 2002) ("Because conditional release does not impose an enhanced criminal penalty or sentence, no actual notice of an offender's eligibility for this program is required ....").

Warner, Taylor and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Sport Pilot Examiners Issued on 09/14/2020 Page 1 of 1

Specialty Aircraft Examiner Branch, AFS-610

FAA

Specialty Aircraft Examiner Branch

Vintage Flight Engineer Examiners

The Specialty Aircraft Examiner Branch, AFS-610 designates Vintage Flight 

Engineer Examiners nationwide. To find an examiner go to the Designee

Management System website at: https://designee.faa.gov/#/designeeLocator

• From the dropdown menu, select “SAE.”

• Select the “Locations Search” radio button.

• Under the country dropdown menu, select “United States.”

• Do not select a state.

• Go down the page to “Vintage Flight Engineer Examiners (VFEE)” and 

select as appropriate:

Turboprop VFEE-TPRP

Turbojet VFEE-TJET

Reciprocating VFEE-RECP

• At the bottom of the page, select the “Search” button, which will display a 

listing of the examiners authorized to test in the aircraft you have 

requested.

• You may contact these examiners by telephone or email.

If you are unable to locate an examiner for your aircraft, please contact the 

Specialty Aircraft Examiner Branch at 405-954-6400 for assistance.
1791.

#### WELLS *v.*THE STATE.

The conviction in this case is contrary to law and the evidence.

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Keidsville— Judge Morgan. February 3, 1909.

Submitted April 13, —

Decided May 4, 1909.

*II. 0. Beasley,*for plaintiff in error.

*II. II. Elders,*solicitor, contra.

Powell, J.

The defendant was charged with cheating and swindling, under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). The State’s contention, supported by the testimony of the prosecutor, was that the defendant contracted with the prosecutor to work for him as an ordinary farm-laborer, at $16 per month, until he should pay and return to him $30.86, which the prosecutor had paid to another person at the defendant’s request; that in addition to paying this $30.86, the defendant was to work on until he had repaid all advances that the prosecutor might make him in the meantime. The defendant went to work and worked three months and six days, and then moved away. At the'time he left he still owed the $30.86, after being credited with his wages, and also owed a balance of $16.66 for supplies advanced to him during performance of the labor.

If we should hold that the act of 1903 covered such a transaction as this, no court having jurisdiction to do so would hesitate to declare the act unconstitutional and void, because of its repugnancy to the Federal constitution and the peonage statutes enacted thereunder, as well as for its repugnancy to our own State *163constitution. It bas been belcl too often to require the citation of any authority that this statute is applicable only where the cheating and swindling has been accomplished through the fraudulent procurement of money under a definite contract of employment. It may be that under the testimony in the record the contract between the prosecutor and the defendant, as to ■ the time of its beginning, is definite enough; but when was it to end? The defendant was to work until he repaid not only the $30.85, but also all future advances. After three months had elapsed he owed the $30.85 and $16.66 more; and at this rate the defendant, though he were a young man at the beginning, and though he might live to the ripest old age, would go down to his grave with his contract still unperformed. Tinder every decision rendered by this court and by the Supreme Court upon the application of this statute, the defendant is not guilty. *Judgment reversed.*
1548.

#### LINDSAY *v.*WEST *et al.*

1. There is a misdemeanor in this State designated by the Penal Code as “trespass,” and therefore a warrant alleging that the accused has committed that offense charges him with a crime.

2. The action of a magistrate in binding over the defendant on a criminal warrant is prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence of probable cause, in a subsequent suit brought by the accused against the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.

Action for malicious prosecution, from city court of Eloyd county — Judge Hamilton. October 6, 1908.

Argued January 27, —

Decided June 15, 1909.

*Seaborn ■& Barry Wright,*for plaintiff.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

This is an action for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused him to be arrested upon a warrant charging him with the offense of “trespass;” that the defendant acted maliciously and without probable cause; that the plaintiff was carried before a magistrate and bound over to the city court, but in that court the prosecution terminated by the solicitor-general entering a nolle prosequi upon the accusation which had been drawn upon the commitment and warrant. The court sustained a general demurrer, and the plaintiff excepts. Two reasons are assigned by the defendant in error why the court properly sustained the demurrer; (1) because the petition does not show that there was any prosecution, for that the warrant charged no crime, there being no such crime as “trespass;” and (2) because the action of the magistrate in binding the defendant over to the city court is conclusive evidence of probable cause.

1. There is such an offense in our law as “trespass.” Our Penal Code, §219, provides: “The following shall be deemed and held to be trespass, and indictable, to wit:” and here follows an enumeration of acts.

2. The rule generally recognized by the American courts is that the binding over of the defendant by a magistrate is prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence of probable cause. Of course, in those States where the magistrate has the power to settle the issue as to the defendant’s guilt, the trial before this officer would have the same effect as a trial before any other competent tribunal. In this State, however, the magistrate has no power in criminal *285matters other than to make a mere preliminary inquiry. The question in all its phases is so fully and ably discussed in the case of Ross *v.*Hixon, 46 Kan. 550 (26 Pac. 955, 12 L. R. A. 760, 26 Am. St. R. 123), and in the note appearing at the foot of the ease as reported in 26 Am. St. R. 123, that we deem it unnecessary to discuss the question further. See also Burdick on Torts, 254; Perkins *v.*Spaulding, 182 Mass. 218 (65 N E. 72). The case last cited goes to the extent of holding that even the finding of a bill by the grand jury is not prima facie evidence of probable cause, but is a circumstance to be considered in determining the question. The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

*Judgment reversed.*
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. Jacob KRAWIEC; Kayela Krawiec, Appellees.

No. 1D17-508

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

Susan B. Morrison, of Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., and David M. Snyder, of David M. Snyder, and Joshua D. Moore, of Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

Adam B. Schemer, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Per Curiam.

*884The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in *Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham* , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive, we reverse the trial court's dismissal order and remand this case for determination on the merits of Dyck-O'Neal's deficiency claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Lewis and Makar, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

                      18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Mass Megawatts Wind
Power,  Inc.  (the  Company) for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
GivenNameJonathon
Ricker,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge:

1.   The  Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2.   The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:   12/17/08                    By:   /s/ Jonathan Ricker
        --------------                     ---------------------------------
                                           Jonathan Ricker
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2023134EN.01000702.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-480/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of certain woven or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in China and Egypt - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 - Definitive countervailing duty - Calculation of the subsidy amount - Attributability of the subsidy - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Import duty drawback scheme - Tax treatment of foreign exchange losses - Calculation of the undercutting margin)

(2023/C 134/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sokhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sokhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Kienapfel, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Tech-Fab Europe eV (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (OJ 2020 L 189, p. 1), in so far as it concerns them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Tech-Fab Europe eV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Tech-Fab Europe eV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---