alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020010EN.01000401.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 — Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic

(Case C-687/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform - Decision that the measure does not constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU)

(2020/C 10/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Noort and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
Case 3:05-cv-01681-L Document 4 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 296
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01681-L Document 4 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 297
# C_2019155EN.01000502.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — Meta Group Srl v European Commission

(Case C-428/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements - Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant - Contractual liability)

(2019/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED
      (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 registrant, including its consolidated 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 registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the 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 registrants internal control over
financial 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 has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant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 significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Randall H. BrownRandall H. Brown, Chief Financial Officer
Merle J. STOKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D14-945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 6, 2019]

Diamond R. Litty, Public Defender, and Usha Maharajh, Assistant Public Defender, Stuart, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

****ON MOTION FOR REHEARING****

Per Curiam.

We grant appellant's motion for rehearing and withdraw our opinions dated January 9, 2019, and February 22, 2017.1

As to appellant's life sentence for murder with eligibility for parole after 25 years on Count I, we affirm. *See**Franklin v. State* , 258 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2018) ; *State v. Michel* , 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018).

As to appellant's consecutive life sentences for the non-homicide offenses on Counts II and III, we reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the sentencing provisions enacted in Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. *Lawton v. State* , 181 So.3d 452 (Fla. 2015).

*1001As to appellant's consecutive 30-year sentence for aggravated battery on a person over 65 years of age on Count IV, we affirm based on *Hart v. State* , 246 So.3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (en banc). As we did in *Hart* , we again certify conflict with *Cuevas v. State* , 241 So.3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Blount v. State* , 238 So.3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Mosier v. State* , 235 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; *Alfaro v. State* , 233 So.3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; and *Burrows v. State* , 219 So.3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

*Affirmed in part; reversed in part* .

Gross, May and Levine, JJ., concur.

1

Because we are issuing a new opinion, the February 3 and March 27, 2017 stays of mandate from our prior opinion are now moot.
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00117

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

SALVADOR MARTINEZ

, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 2 5 th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for

Gonzales County, Texas, has filed a motion for stay of proceedings in the above cause.

On February 4, 2014, the trial court g ranted a motion to suppress evidence. T he State

has filed a notice of appeal and has requested a stay in the trial court ’ s proceedings

pending disposition of its appeal. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. § 44.01( a )(5), (e)2

( West, Westlaw through 20 07 Sess.). The Court, having examined and fully considered

the motion for stay of proceedings, is of the opinion that said motion should be granted.

The motion for stay is hereby GRANTED, and the trial court's proceedings are he reby

ordered STAYED pending disposition of the State ’ s appeal.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed t he

24 th day of February , 20 14

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31,2006 (the “Report”), of Mac-Gray Corporation (the “Company”) each of theundersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

·       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”); and

·       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the ExchangeAct. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shallnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

| Dated: March 16, 2007  |   | /s/ STEWART G.  MACDONALD, JR.  |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Name: Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr. |
|                        |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer       |
| Dated:  March 16, 2007 |   | /s/ MICHAEL J. SHEA                  |
|                        |   | Name: Michael J. Shea                |
|                        |   | Title: Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7132** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS TYRONE NORMAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 7:06

- cr - 00983

- HMH

- 1; 7:14

- cv - 02775

- HMH )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25 , 2014

Before KING and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas Tyrone Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Tyrone Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , which the district court treated as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a cir cuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
4 84 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norman has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we

* Although the district court granted Norman’s first § 2255 motion and ordered that Norman be resentenced, in this habeas motion, Norman only raises issues pertaining to his convictions. (Continued)3 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Norman could have, but did not, raise the issues he seeks to raise in this § 2255 motion in his previous § 2255 motion. Cf. United States v. Hairston , 754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2010) ( § 2255 motion not successive w here claims did not exist at time of first § 2255 motion); In re Taylor , 171 F.3d 185, 187

- 88 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding § 2255 motion not successive where petitioner sought to raise only those issues that originated at the time of his resentencing, after hi s first § 2255 motion was granted).
Monteco Devante BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas, in March 1991, Saddam Hussein responded to an 

uprising in Iraqi Kurdistan with a violent military campaign that included the use of chemical weapons against 

the citizens of Iraqi Kurdistan, most of whom were unarmed civilians; 

Whereas Saddam Hussein’s forces killed approximately 

200,000 Iraqi Kurds, destroyed approximately 4,500 

Iraqi Kurdish villages, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds who fled to the northern and eastern borders of Iraq, fearing that the regime would use 

chemical weapons against them, as it did during Saddam 

Hussein’s Anfal campaign, including the Halabja chemical weapon attack only 3 years before; 

Whereas, at one point in the early days of the 1991 crisis, 

the daily death toll of fleeing Iraqi Kurds exceeded 1,000, 

with victims succumbing to exposure, malnutrition, and 

disease; 

Whereas, the United States, in response to the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, led Operation Provide Comfort, 

delivering humanitarian relief and enforcing a no-fly 

zone, saving the lives of countless thousands of Iraqi 

Kurds from near certain death on the freezing and rugged border mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan; 
2 

†SCON 16 ES 

Whereas Operation Provide Comfort provided security and 

stability in Iraqi Kurdistan; and 

Whereas the Kurdistan regional government and the Kurdish 

Peshmerga remain steadfast partners of the United 

States in the fight against extremism and terrorism: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) commemorates the 30th anniversary of Op4 eration Provide Comfort; 

5 (2) recognizes and honors the soldiers, dip6 lomats, political leaders, and coalition partners of 

7 the United States who implemented Operation Pro8 vide Comfort; 

9 (3) recognizes and honors the nearly 2,000,000 

10 Iraqis, mostly Kurds, who were displaced by the 

11 Hussein regime and who survived starvation and ex12 posure, and for whom Operation Provide Comfort of13 fered assistance, security, and a chance for a new 

14 life; 

15 (4) encourages Iraqi Kurdish leaders to con16 tinue to uphold the values of democracy, human 

17 rights, and freedom; and 

18 (5) reaffirms— 

19 (A) the strong partnership between the 

20 United States and the Iraqi Kurds, which exists 
3 

†SCON 16 ES 

1 in complementarity with the United States 

2 strong partnership with the Government of 

3 Iraq; and 

4 (B) the enduring respect and support of 

5 Congress for Iraqi Kurds, who continue to 

6 stand with the United States in shared opposi7 tion to extremism and terrorism. 

Passed the Senate December 15, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 30th anniversary of Operation 

Provide Comfort.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 973 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 973

    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2021

 Ms. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, and Mr. 
Risch) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
            to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREATER YELLOWSTONE 
              ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the 
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 
Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears 
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (82 Fed. 
Reg. 30502 (June 30, 2017)), without regard to any other provision of 
law that applies to the issuance of that final rule.
    (b) No Judicial Review.--The reissuance of the final rule described 
in subsection (a) (including this section) shall not be subject to 
judicial review.
                                 <all>
```
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 95 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow for greater State 

flexibility with respect to excluding providers who are involved in abortions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. 

MORAN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. COTTON, Ms. ERNST, 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, and Mr. 

HAWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow 

for greater State flexibility with respect to excluding 

providers who are involved in abortions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Public 

5 Health and Safety Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 95 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASING STATE FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING 

2 PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS WHO PER3 FORM, OR PARTICIPATE IN THE PERFORM4 ANCE OF, ABORTIONS. 

5 Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1396a) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(23), by striking ‘‘sub8 section (g)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (g) and 

9 (tt),’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(tt) RULES WITH RESPECT TO DETERMINATION OF

13 PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS WHO PERFORM, OR PAR14 TICIPATE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF, ABORTIONS.— 

15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

16 for purposes of this title, a State, at its option, may 

17 establish criteria with respect to the participation 

18 under the State plan (or a waiver of such plan) of 

19 an institution, an agency, an entity, or a person who 

20 performs, or participates in the performance of, 

21 abortions. 

22 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

23 apply to an abortion— 

24 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an 

25 act of rape or incest; or 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 95 IS

1 ‘‘(B) in the case where a woman suffers 

2 from a physical disorder, physical injury, or 

3 physical illness that would, as certified by a 

4 physician, place the woman in danger of death 

5 unless an abortion is performed, including a 

6 life-endangering physical condition caused by or 

7 arising from the pregnancy itself. 

8 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub9 section, the terms ‘institution’, ‘agency’, or ‘entity’ 

10 mean the entire legal institution, agency, or entity, 

11 or any part thereof, including any institution, agen12 cy, or entity that controls, is controlled by, or is 

13 under common control with such institution, agency, 

14 or entity.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[LETTERHEAD OF ORGANITECH LTD]
                              The Growth Revolution

                                AGENCY AGREEMENT

                     Signed in Nesher in December 22nd 2002

By and between:

OrganiTECH Ltd.

And

A.T.A. Nehar Hayarden Ltd. (formerly called Holyland herbs Ltd.)

The following was concluded and agreed between the sides:

      1.    A.T.A. will be the exclusive agent of ORGT products in Israel for a
            period of 24 months starting on 1.1.2003.

      2.    A.T.A. will be entitled to maintain it's exclusive rights for a
            longer period provided A.T.A. will execute sales of at least 500,000
            US$ in the 24 months period of the agreement.

      3.    A.T.A. is committed to sell 500,000 US$ in each of the 3rd and the
            4th years, in order to retain its exclusive rights herein.

      4.    In case A.T.A. does not meet with the sales requirements herin, it
            will still be entitled to a 1 year non-exclusive rights.

      5.    A.T.A. is committed to prepare and execute a detailed marketing
            plan.

OrganiTECH Ltd                                  A.T.A. Neahr Hayarden Ltd.