alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-16-2006 

# In Re: J ames R

i ley P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4004

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: J ame s R

i ley " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 186. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/186P eti ti o n er se ek s an o rde r directing the D istri ct C o u rtto g ran t his prelim inary 1 i nj unct i on/ t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der . B eca us e s uch r el i ef i s bey ond t he s cope of t he r el i ef a vai l abl e under28 U . S. C . § 1651( a) , w e cons t r ue t he pet i t i on i ns t ead, as s eeki ng an H L D -6 ( O ct ober2006) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4004

________________ I N R E : J AM E S RI L E Y, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e D istri ct of D elaw are ( R el at ed t o C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00001)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

O ct ober13, 2006 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, W E IS and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed N ovember 15, 2006)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e pet i t i onerJ ames Ri l eys eeks a w r i tof m andamus t o compel t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e t o r ul e i m m edi at el yon hi s m ot i on for pr el i m i nar yi nj unct i on/ t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derfi l ed J ul y18, 2006. 1o rde r t h at direc ts th e D istri ct C o u rtto ru le i m m ed iat elyo n the m o ti o n fo r pre li m inary

injun cti o n /t em p o raryrestrai n ing o rde r. 2 O n O ct ober27, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or derdeny i ng R i l ey ’ s m ot i on forpr el i m i nar yi nj unct i on/ t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der . B eca us e R i l eyhas now r ece i ved th e re lief h e so u g h t in f

ili n g h is m a n d a m u s p e tit io n – a ru lin g o n th a t m o tio n – w e w ill d e n yh is m a n d a m u s p e titio n a s m o o t.
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 67 

Recognizing the roles and the contributions of Americas Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and their critical role in providing quality 

health care for the public and the Nation’s Armed Forces for more 

than 150 years and through multiple public health emergencies and 

beyond. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2025 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. TONKO, Ms. 

BONAMICI, and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the roles and the contributions of Americas Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and their 

critical role in providing quality health care for the public 

and the Nation’s Armed Forces for more than 150 years 

and through multiple public health emergencies and beyond. 

Whereas Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) 

are essential to America’s health care system, providing 

high-quality, cost-effective anesthesia and pain management care for more than 150 years as the first anesthesia 

providers; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 67 IH 

Whereas CRNAs safely administer more than 58,000,000 anesthetics to patients each year; 

Whereas CRNAs are the primary providers of anesthesia care 

in rural America, enabling health care facilities in these 

medically underserved areas to offer obstetrical, surgical, 

trauma stabilization, and pain management services for 

millions of underserved and at-risk people; 

Whereas CRNAs practice in every setting in which anesthesia 

is delivered, including traditional hospital surgical suites 

and obstetrical delivery rooms, the offices of dentists, podiatrists, ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons, ambulatory surgical centers, and United States Military and 

Public Health Services and Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities; and 

Whereas the purpose of National CRNA Week, held January 

19, 2025, through January 25, 2025, is to raise public 

awareness of and celebrate the Nation’s 65,000 Certified 

Registered Nurse Anesthetists and student registered 

nurse anesthetists: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks 

2 and promotes the profession of Certified Registered Nurse 

3 Anesthetists (CRNAs) and their incredible, selfless, and 

4 dedicated service for over 150 years, by encouraging pa5 tients, hospital administrators, health care professionals, 

6 policymakers, and others to utilize CRNAs to their full 

7 potential and to recognize the work of CRNAs by partici8 pating in National CRNA Week. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, NARASIMHAN SRINATH, CERTIFY THAT: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 report; 

 

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

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:September 30, 2005
```

                                                                    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 Terra Nova Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Lee W. Chung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ Lee W. Chung                                         Dated: May 15, 2006
    ------------------------------------------------
        Lee W. Chung
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund III (theregistrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        **Date:**April 2, 2007  */s/*Kimberly A. Springsteen  Kimberly A. Springsteen   Chief Executive Officer   
33
# C_2021452EN.01002901.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-105/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Éric Ruhorimbere to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Éric Ruhorimbere to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
# C_2018352EN.01000601.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Château du Grand Bois SCI v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-59/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Market in wine - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Support for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards - Unannounced on-the-spot checks - Powers of control officials - Whether officials may enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission))

(2018/C 352/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Château du Grand Bois SCI

Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 76, 78 and 81 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, must be interpreted as not authorising officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---
# C_2016260EN.01004501.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/45

---

Action brought on 20 May 2016 — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office v Commission

(Case T-251/16)

(2016/C 260/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Jelínek, staff member, assisted by G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision C(2016)1449 final of the European Commission of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity, with the exception of Article 1(2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2016)1449 final of the European Commission of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity, with the exception of Article 1(2);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment committed by the European Commission. The contested decision does not comply with the legal requirements governing waiver of immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file. Moreover, the contested decision did not correctly assess the EU’s interest and compromises the independence of the Director-General of OLAF. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment committed by the European Commission. The contested decision does not comply with the legal requirements governing waiver of immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file. Moreover, the contested decision did not correctly assess the EU’s interest and compromises the independence of the Director-General of OLAF.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringements of law and distortion of the decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringements of law and distortion of the decision-making process.

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and of procedural guarantees. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and of procedural guarantees.

---
# C_2019230EN.01000601.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

(Case C-566/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Principle of VAT neutrality - Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities - Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions - Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation - Principle of lawfulness of the tax)

(2019/C 230/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach

Defendant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national practice which permits a taxable person to deduct the entirety of the input value added tax (VAT) paid on the purchase of goods and services by that taxable person for the purposes of performing both economic activities, which are subject to VAT, and non-economic activities, which do not come within the scope of VAT, on account of the absence, in the applicable tax legislation, of specific rules on allocation criteria which would allow the taxable person to determine the share of input tax which ought to be deemed to be connected to his economic and non-economic activities respectively.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin James ALEXANDER -aka- Kevin J. Alexander -aka- James K. Alexander -aka- Kevin Alexander, Jr.

NO. 2018-KO-1794

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.
# C_2016118EN.01004001.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

(Case T-76/16)

(2016/C 118/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AEGYPTISCHE ERDE’ — Application for registration No 14 027 239

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 in Case R 1257/2015-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
EX PARTE Michael Lamar HOWARD

1160906 (CR-16-0479)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.