alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022432EN.01000301.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

(Case C-633/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single market in insurance - Directive 2002/92/EC - Definition of ‘insurance intermediary’ - Activity of ‘insurance mediation’ - Directive (EU) 2016/97 - Activity of ‘distribution of insurance’ - Scope of those directives - Membership of a group insurance policy - Assignment of rights under the insurance contract - Insurance benefits in the event of sickness or accident abroad - Remuneration paid by the member in consideration for the insurance cover acquired - Consumer protection - Equal treatment of insurance intermediaries)

(2022/C 432/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, as amended by Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, and of Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016, on the distribution of insurance, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018,

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance intermediary’ and, therefore, that of ‘insurance distributor’, within the meaning of those provisions, covers a legal person whose activity consists in offering its customers membership on a voluntary basis, in return for payment which it receives from them, of a group insurance policy to which it has subscribed previously with an insurance company, where that membership entitles those customers to insurance benefits in the event, in particular, of sickness or accident abroad.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
Wireline Competition Bureau

TELECOMMUN

POLIC

OFFICE OF THE BUREAU CHIEF

Trent Harkrader, Bureau Chief

 Noah Stein, Deputy Bureau Chief

Terri Natoli, Deputy Bureau Chief 

Adam Copeland, Deputy Bureau Chief 

Lisa Zaina, Chief of Staff

Elizabeth Drogula, Associate Bureau Chief 

Suzanne Yelen, Associate Bureau Chief 

Allison Baker, Associate Bureau Chief 

Lisa Wilson Edwards, Associate Bureau Chief 

Callie Coker, Legal Advisor

Kiara Ortiz, Actiing Legal Advisor

Simon Solemani, Acting Legal Advisor

PRICING POLICY DIVISION

Victoria Goldberg, Division Chief

Lynne Engledow, Deputy Division Chief

David Zesiger, Deputy Division Chief 

Christopher Koves, Associate Division Chief 

Irina Asoskov, Assistant Division Chief

Erik Raven-Hansen, Assistant Division Chief 

William Kehoe, Senior Counsel 

Albert Lewis, Special Counsel

Jodie Griffin, Division Chief 

Bryan Boyle, Deputy Division Chief 

Johnnay Schrieber, Deputy Division Chi

Jessica Campbell, Deputy Division Chie

Jesse Jachman, Deputy Division Chief 

Nicholas Page, Associate Division Chie

Matthew Baker, Associate Division Chi

Cheryl Callahan, Assistant Division Chi

James Bachtell, Assistant Division Chie

William Layton, Assistant Division Chi

Nathan Eagan, Assistant Division Chie

Philip Bonomo, Assistant Division Chie

Sue McNeil, Senior Counsel

* On Detail to Chairwoman’s Office: Ramesh Nagarajan Katherine Dumouchel, Special Counse

COMPETITION POLICY DIVISION

Jodie May Donovan, Division Chief

 Melissa Kirkel, Deputy Division Chief

Heather Hendrickson, Deputy Division Chief 

Edward Krachmer, Deputy Division Chief

Chris Laughlin, Deputy Division Chief

Randall Sifers, Deputy Division Chief

Rodney McDonald, Assistant Division Chief 

Michele Berlove, Assistant Division Chief 

Zachary Ross, Assistant Division Chief

Christi Shewman, Special Counsel

* On Detail to OCH: Elizabeth Cuttner* On Detail to Commissioner Starks Office: Justin Faulb* On Detail to Commissioner Gomez 's Office: Hayley Steffen

* On Detail : Matt Collins
The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-4148

___________

United States of America, *

*

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

William Schwalb, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 8, 1996

 Filed: May 21, 1996

___________

Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN,

Circuit Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Texas brokers William Schwalb and Robert Dunlap induced a Nebraska

investor to invest $50,000 toward the purchase of woolen mill equipment

that a Mexican buyer had supposedly committed to repurchase, and another

$28,000 to purchase and resell commercial sewing machines. When the deals

fell through, Schwalb and Dunlap were indicted for wire fraud and

interstate transportation of stolen property. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and

2314. A jury convicted Schwalb on six counts. The district court1

sentenced him to fifteen months in prison plus a $78,000 restitution

obligation. Schwalb appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Schwalb first argues that the prosecution was vindictive in

responding to his pretrial motion to dismiss the initial indictment 
-2-

by expanding the challenged counts in a superseding indictment. We

disagree. There is no presumption of vindictiveness when the prosecution

responds to a defendant's pretrial motion in this manner. See United

States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381 (1982). It is not "vindictiveness"

for the prosecution to eliminate possible pleading deficiencies in the

initial indictment.

Schwalb next argues that there was insufficient evidence of intent

to defraud. However, the Nebraska investor's testimony provided ample

evidence for the jury to find that Schwalb made intentional

misrepresentations that induced the Nebraskan to invest. Schwalb also

argues that the prosecutor made a prejudicial closing argument by

presenting a hypothetical not based on the evidence and by accurately

noting evidence that Dunlap cashed a check obtained with the defrauded

investor's money in Las Vegas. We conclude this was neither improper nor

prejudicial argument.

Finally, Schwalb argues that his sentence is tainted by an erroneous

enhancement for more than minimal planning. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A).

We conclude the district court's finding of more than minimal planning is

not clearly erroneous given the evidence of elaborate steps taken to induce

the victim to invest in the woolen mill equipment deal, and of efforts to

conceal that offense from the victim which helped induce him to invest in

the later sewing machine deal. See § 1B1.1 comment. (n.1(f)) (more than

minimal planning exists if "steps were taken to conceal the offense, other

than conduct" amounting to obstruction of justice).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Xzavier CAVE, Appellee.

No. 3D17-553

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 10-Q/A
 Amendment No. 1
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTER ENDED June 30, 2006
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
 Commission file number 000-51194
 
 Benjamin Franklin Bancorp, Inc.
  Massachusetts
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    04-3336598
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)58 Main Street, Franklin, MA
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    02038
(Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:
 
 þ o
  o o þ
  o þ




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESEx-10.8.1 Form of Incentive Stock Option AgreementEx-10.8.2 Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement (Officer)Ex-10.8.3 Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement (Director)Ex-10.8.4 Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (Officer)Ex-10.8.5 Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (Director)Ex-31.1 Section 302 Certification of the C.E.O.Ex-31.2 Section 302 Certification of the C.F.O.    Table of Contents   Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.8.1
    
    Form of Incentive Stock Option Agreement10.8.2
    
    Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement (Officer)10.8.3
    
    Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement (Director)10.8.4
    
    Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (Officer)10.8.5
    
    Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (Director)31.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.31.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 -2-




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  Benjamin Franklin Bancorp, Inc.Date: August 18, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Thomas R. Venables

Thomas R. VenablesPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 18, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Claire S. BeanClaire S. BeanTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
 -3-
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Annual Report of Empirical Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Derek Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.  /s/ Derek WardDerek WardChief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerSeptember 8, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5, 2017

t1212 

# Order

Clerk January 5, 2017

154100

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154100

COA: 321583

Wayne CC: 13

- 000967

- FC

CLARENCE SAMUEL HUNTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2017374EN.01002403.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

(Case C-255/17) (1)

1

(2017/C 374/36)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

1

---
Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 1 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 2 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 3 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 4 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 5 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 6 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 7 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 8 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 9 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 10 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 11 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 12 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 13 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 14 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 15 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 16 of 17

Case 3:17-cv-00026-RS   Document 1   Filed 01/04/17   Page 17 of 17
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 109 

Designating April 2021 as ‘‘National Native Plant Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2021 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 2021 as ‘‘National Native Plant Month’’. 

Whereas native plants are indigenous species that have 

evolved and occur naturally in a particular region, ecosystem, and habitat; 

Whereas there are more than 17,000 native plant species in 

the United States, which include trees, shrubs, vines, 

grasses, and wildflowers; 

Whereas native plants help prevent flooding, drought, and 

erosion and can help restore damaged ecosystems; 

Whereas native plants provide shelter as well as nectar, pollen, and seeds that serve as food for native butterflies, insects, birds, and other wildlife in ways that non-native 

plants cannot; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 109 IS 

Whereas more than 200 of the native plant species in the 

United States are estimated to have been lost since the 

early 19th century; 

Whereas habitat loss and degradation, extreme weather 

events, and invasive species have contributed to the decline of native plants in the United States; and 

Whereas native plants are essential components of resilient 

ecosystems and our natural heritage: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 2021 as ‘‘National Native 

3 Plant Month’’; and 

4 (2) recognizes the benefits of native plants to 

5 the environment and economy of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Pamela Christina LEGGETT, Appellant, v. In re: ADOPTION OF GVLP & SELP, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2040

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

Pamela Leggett, in proper person.

Alan I. Mishael, P.A., and Alan I. Mishael, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 63.182(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ("[A]n action or proceeding of any kind to vacate, set aside, or otherwise nullify a judgment of adoption or an underlying judgment terminating parental rights on any ground may not be filed more than [one] year after entry of the judgment ..."); *Martin v. Adoption of L.M.D.*, 64 So.3d 758, 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("Florida's statute of repose strictly limits motions to vacate adoption orders to one year. There are no exceptions."); *see**also**D.M.T. v. T.M.H.*, 129 So.3d 320, 328-29 (Fla. 2013) ("Parental rights, which include the love and affection an individual has for his or her child, transcend the relationship between two consenting adults, and we see nothing in this record that makes either [woman] an exception that places those rights in one to the exclusion of the other. It is unknown what caused these two women to cross the proverbial line between love and hate, but that is a matter between [them]. Their separation does not dissolve the parental rights of either woman to the child, nor does it dissolve the love and affection either has for the child.") (quoting *T.M.H. v. D.M.T.*, 79 So.3d 787, 802-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ); *In re Adoption of D.P.P*, 158 So.3d 633, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ("[I]t would be unconscionable to allow [the mother] to invoke the jurisdiction of this court for the sole purpose of creating a parent-child relationship between [her child] and [her partner] and then to allow her to destroy that same relationship because her relationship with [her partner] has ended.").
Case 3:05-cv-01025-B Document 4 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
**EXHIBIT 3.5**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**V.I. TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

It is herebycertified that: 

1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is V.I. Technologies, Inc. 

2. The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed on January 1, 1993 under the name Melville Biologics, Inc. A Restated Certificateof Incorporation was filed on June 11, 1998 and thereafter said Restated Certificate of Incorporate was amended on November 12, 1999, May 30, 2001, March 10, 2003, July 28, 2003, March 10,2005, March 11, 2005 and March 14, 2005. The Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, is hereby further amended to change the name of the Corporation to Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by deleting Article FIRST in its entiretyand by substituting in lieu thereof the following new Article FIRST: 

“FIRST: The name of the Corporation is PanacosPharmaceuticals, Inc.” 

3. The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance withthe provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

4. The effective time of Amendment hereincertified shall be August 17, 2005. 

Signed this 15th day of August, 2005. 

/s/ Samuel K.Ackerman                    

Samuel K. Ackerman, M.D. 

President and Chief Executive Officer
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Shareholders of Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.
    and Unitholders of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-116298 and 333-121578) on Form S-4/A of Heritage Property Investment
Trust, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in partners' capital, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and the financial
statement schedule of real estate and accumulated depreciation as of December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of
Bradley Operating Limited Partnership.

(signed)
KPMG LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 29, 2005

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ALVARO BORJA, §

Petitioner, §

§

v. §

§ Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1338-D

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

Respondent §

 

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

the undersigned is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are

correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

SO ORDERED.

February 27, 2008.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

CHIEF JUDGE
STATE of Louisiana v. Gerard HOWARD

No. 2019-KH-0389

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *1260*State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, applicant's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

Applicant has now fully litigated another application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Guidry, J., recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 11 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 11

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
     Management relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological 
                              Resources''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2025

Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
     Management relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological 
                              Resources''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to 
``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'' (89 Fed. Reg. 71160 
(September 3, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```