alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020271EN.01003101.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/31

---

Action brought on 24 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-278/20)

(2020/C 271/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, J. Baquero Cruz and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as limitations on the autonomy enjoyed by Member States when laying down the substantive and procedural conditions governing their liability for harm caused to individuals in breach of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as limitations on the autonomy enjoyed by Member States when laying down the substantive and procedural conditions governing their liability for harm caused to individuals in breach of EU law;

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for failure to fulfil obligations, submitted in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, relates to Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the legal rules governing the public sector, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the common administrative procedure for public bodies.

The provisions at issue have aligned the rules on the liability of the State as legislature for breaches of EU law with the provisions laid down for infringements of the Spanish Constitution by acts of the legislature, by adding certain substantive conditions.

The alignment of the rules and the associated procedural requirements have the effect of making it impossible or extremely difficult to seek redress for infringements of EU law by the Spanish legislature, in breach of the principle of effectiveness.

Furthermore, the substantive conditions added for infringements of EU law are incompatible with the principle of equivalence, by making redress for harm caused by the Spanish legislature in breach of EU law subject to conditions that are less favourable than those applicable to harm arising from an infringement of the Spanish Constitution.

---
1

 
     Section 2. Miscellaneous.     (a) All of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement are incorporated herein by referencewith the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Except as expressly amended hereby,the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.     (b) This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with thelaws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of law.     (c) Borrower hereby (1) unconditionally ratifies and confirms, renews and reaffirms all of itsobligations under the Loan Agreement and all of the terms, covenants and conditions thereunder(except for conditions precedent and any representations or warranties made as of a specific date),(2) acknowledges and agrees that such obligations remain in full force and effect, binding on andenforceable against it in accordance with the terms, covenants and conditions of the LoanAgreement, without impairment and (3) represents, warrants and covenants that it is not in defaultunder the Loan Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents beyond any applicable notice and cureperiods, and there are no defenses, offsets or counterclaims against the Indebtedness.[Signatures Appear on Following Page]
2

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is herebyacknowledged and agreed, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of thedate first hereinabove set forth.             **BORROWER****:**               W2007 ACEP EIGHTH MEZZANINE A    BORROWER, L.P., a Delaware limitedpartnership               By: W2007 ACEP Eighth Mezzanine A Gen-    Par, L.L.C., its general partner                 By: /s/ David Gutstadt                 Name: David Gutstadt        Title: Vice President               W2007 ACEP EIGHTH MEZZANINE B    BORROWER, L.P., a Delaware limitedpartnership               By: W2007 ACEP Eighth Mezzanine B Gen-    Par, L.L.C., its general partner                 By: /s/ David Gutstadt                 Name: David Gutstadt        Title: Vice President  [Signatures continue on following page]Stratosphere
# C_2021019EN.01004401.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2020 — DS v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-565/20)

(2021/C 19/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DS

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).

---
Exhibit 32.1



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 Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and will be retained by Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



May 22, 2006



/s/ Larry Eastland



Larry Eastland

Chief Executive Officer
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:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# 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 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1190 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-985, K2025-984.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31745 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Interim 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 results of operations of the Company.



November 17, 2008



| |     |                                              
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                            
| |     | David J. Curd
Interim Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021252EN.01003804.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

---

Order of the General Court of 29 April 2021 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-139/20) (1)

(2021/C 252/62)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
Order entered June 28 , 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00757

- CR

MIGUEL GUERRERO REYE S, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 53482

- V



### O RDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the March 23, 2018 m otion of

Tara Cunningham for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Cl erk

of the Court to remove Tara Cunningham as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Miguel Guerrero

Reyes, TDCJ No. 02145501, Middleton Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas, 79601.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 595-596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31668]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

[DOCKET #: RUS-24-ELECTRIC-0032]

Notice of Extension of the Application Deadline for Section 313A 
Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Utility Infrastructure 
Purposes for Fiscal Year 2025

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

[[Page 596]]

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS or the Agency), a Rural 
Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), is announcing the extension and reopening of the Guarantees for 
Bonds and Notes Issued for Utility Infrastructure Purposes Program (the 
313A Program) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 application window through 
January 31, 2025.

DATES: The application period for the funding opportunity published 
October 25, 2024 at 89 FR 85148 is reopened. Completed applications 
must be electronically received by RUS no later than 5 p.m. eastern 
time (ET) on January 31, 2025. Applicants intending to submit 
applications must have their applications received by the closing 
deadline.

ADDRESSES: Completed applications must be submitted electronically to 
Amy McWilliams, Branch Chief, Policy and Outreach Branch, Office of 
Customer Service and Technical Assistance, Electric Program, RUS at 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy McWilliams, Branch Chief, Policy 
and Outreach Branch, Office of Customer Service and Technical 
Assistance, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 1560, Room 4121-South, Washington, DC 
20250-1560, by email at [email protected], or call (202) 205-
8663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The 313A Program guarantees loans to selected applicants and the 
proceeds of those loans are to be used for the purpose of making 
utility infrastructure loans and for refinancing bonds or notes issued 
for such purposes to a borrower that has at any time received, or is 
eligible to receive, a loan under the Rural Electrification Act of 
1936, as amended. The FY 2025 funding opportunity for the 313A Program 
was announced by a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 2024, at 89 FR 85148. Applicants 
should refer to this NOFO for all details on this funding opportunity.
    With this notice, RUS is reopening the December 24, 2024, 
application deadline and extending it until 5 p.m. ET on January 31, 
2025.

Andrew Berke,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, USDA Rural Development.
[FR Doc. 2024-31668 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
```
# C_2016106EN.01004202.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/42

---

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)

(Case T-37/16)

(2016/C 106/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAFFÈ NERO’ — Application for registration No 13 436 175

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2015 in Case R 954/2015-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow Community trade mark application No. 13436175 to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow Community trade mark application No. 13436175 to proceed to registration;

| — | waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2); |
| --- | --- |

—

waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2);

| — | allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services;

| — | order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2021357EN.01002302.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 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-170/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid between April and June 2010, February, June and July 2011 and, lastly, between 21 May and 27 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 61 423,40 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid between April and June 2010, February, June and July 2011 and, lastly, between 21 May and 27 July 2012;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Exhibit 13.1 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 Annual Report of MAX Resource Corp. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart Rogers, Principal Executive and I, Christopher Cherry, Principal 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 / Stuart RogersStuart Rogers, Principal Executive Officer April 1, 2010   / s / Christopher CherryChristopher Cherry, Principal Financial Officer April 1, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3779

___________

In re: Leland William Jacobs; *

Carolyn Louise Johnson-Jacobs, *

*

Debtors, *

---------------------------------------- *

*

Leland William Jacobs, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Educational Credit *

Management Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2012

Filed: June 25, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
Leland Jacobs appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy 1

court’s judgment, which denied Jacobs’s request to discharge--based on the “undue

2

hardship” provision in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)--his student loan debt to Educational

Credit Management Corporation. 

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude that the denial ofJacobs’s request was appropriate, for the reasons discussed

by the bankruptcy court and the district court. See In re Long, 322 F.3d 549, 553-55

(8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Circuit applies “totality-of-the-circumstances test” in

determining whether student loan debt should be discharged based on undue

hardship; describing facts and circumstances bankruptcy court should consider in

evaluating totality of circumstances); see also Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Jesperson,

571 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2009) (debtor bears rigorous burden of proving undue

hardship by preponderance of evidence); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.

1984) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from having to comply with

substantive and procedural law; pro se litigant should receive meaningful notice of

what is expected of him, but court is not permitted to act as counsel for either party). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

The Honorable Gregory F. Kishel, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy

2

Court for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. )

REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3877

)

JOHN A. BROWN, as Personal )

Representative of the Estate of Maria )

Joyce Brown, )

)

Appellee. )

)

)

Opinion filed December 7, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Thomas H. Minkoff, Judge.

Geoffrey J. Michael of Arnold & Porter 

Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC; and 

Scott A. Chesin of Mayer Brown LLP, 

New York, NY, for Appellant Philip Morris 

USA Inc. 

Charles R.A. Morse of Jones Day, 

New York, N.Y; and Marie A. Borland 

and Troy A. Furman of Hill, Ward & 

Henderson, P.A., Tampa; and Stephanie 

E. Parker and John M. Walker of Jones 

Day, Atlanta, GA, for Appellant R.J. 

Reynolds Tobacco Company.

David A. Sales and Daniel R. Hoffman

of David J. Sales, P.A., Sarasota; and 
- 2 -

Eric D. Roslansky and Steven C. Ruth 

of The Ruth Law Team, St. Petersburg;

and Brent Bigger of Knoph Bigger, 

Tampa, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.