alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017161EN.01001601.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

---

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-170/17)

(2017/C 161/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by N. Yerrell and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| 1. | Declare that, by issuing special national driving licences for driving vehicles of the AM harmonized category, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by issuing special national driving licences for driving vehicles of the AM harmonized category, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. (1)

1

| 2. | Declare that, by failing to ensure that a person holds one driving licence only, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(b) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declare that, by failing to ensure that a person holds one driving licence only, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(b) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.

| 3. | Order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards the obligations of the Portuguese Republic under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) and under Article 7(5)(b) of the Directive, the Commission considers that the Portuguese Republic has not taken the necessary measures before expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Moreover, the Portuguese administration, by stating in its letter of 15 December 2016 that it will carry out future legislative amendments in this respect, itself acknowledges that it has not taken such measures.

---

(1)  OJ 2006, L 403, p. 18.

1

---
Exhibit 12.1 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jan Hommen, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in 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 (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered 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 internal control over financial reporting, tothe 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 over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 18, 2013
STATE OP Louisiana v. Brandon MOORE

NO. 2018-KH-1443

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Moore v. State, 17-1581 (La. 11/5/18), 255 So.3d 1040.
Exhibit 32.1Inconnection with the Annual Report of P.F. Chang’s on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), IRick L. Federico, Chief Executive Officer of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (the “Registrant”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theRegistrant.                                                 /s/ RICHARD L. FEDERICO   *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*  February 14, 2007   
81
EXHIBIT 31.1




                                 CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William Tay, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Echelon
Acquisition Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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 present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 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

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

      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  controls 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.

<PAGE>
Date:  April 15, 2005


/s/ William Tay
---------------------------------------
William Tay, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
Case 2:05-cv-00231-J Document 13 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 83
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03- 06 -00 704 -CV Ja c que lyn Va ye Abb ot t , A ppe lla nt

v. Timot hy Mark Cam eron Abbott , Appellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 06- 0280 , HO NORAB LE GARY L. STEEL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant filed her notice of appea l on N ovember 16, 2006. On J anuar

y 25, 2007, the district cler

k informed this Court that appellant ha d not paid or made a rra ng ements to pay

for the cler k’s re cord. Tha

t same day , we sent appellant a letter re quiringher to submit a status repor t by F e br ua ry 5, 20 07 , in fo rm inghe r t

hat he r fa ilure to do so wo uld re su lt i n th e dis mis sa l of

he r a pp e a l. To date, t h e clerk’s re cord ha s not been filed, a nd appellant ha s neither f iled a status re port nor respon d edin any

manner to our J anuar

y 25 letter. We there fore dismiss the appe al for w ant of prosec ution. Tex . R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Mar ch 21, 2007
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 19 (Thursday, January 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8543-8544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01918]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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 30, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.

[[Page 8544]]

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 23, 2025, it filed with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 602 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1153, K2025-1153.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-01918 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
D.A.S. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2161001

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 16, 2018

Affirmed.
A copy of the following paper will appear on the post-conference website. Please check 

the following link after January 15, 2006. 

http://www.fcsm.gov/reports/ 

Methodological Challenges in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes in a 

Clinical Trial 

Elizabeth Hahn and David Cella (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, USA) and 

G. Alastair Glendenning (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA) 

The analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data in an international clinical trial 

presents methodological, statistical and interpretive challenges. Specific strategies are 

needed regarding the psychometric measurement properties of self-report instruments, 

cross-cultural measurement equivalence, definitions of clinical significance, missing data, 

longitudinal modeling, and descriptions of clinically interpretable results. Development 

and implementation of these strategies is illustrated using the 16-country International 

Randomized IFN vs. STI571 (IRIS) Study of 1106 newly diagnosed patients with chronic 

phase chronic myeloid leukemia. The primary endpoint was the duration of progressionfree survival; PROs were secondary endpoints. Crossover to the other treatment was 

permitted because of intolerance or lack of efficacy. The Functional Assessment of 

Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) was completed as a 

measure of health-related quality of life at baseline, months 1–6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 in the 

patient’s preferred language. The methodological issues and specific strategies developed 

to address them are summarized. An item response theory (IRT) measurement model was 

used to evaluate psychometrics, including cross-cultural comparability (eight languages), 

and to aid in interpretation of treatment differences. A mixed effects model was chosen 

for the longitudinal analyses, with a pattern-mixture technique to adjust for nonignorable 

missing data. Crossover effects were added as a time-dependent covariate. To better 

understand the meaning of the PRO scores, a clinically significant treatment effect was 

prespecified, and a modified forest plot was used to summarize IRT responses. 1049 

patients (95%) participated in the assessments. The patterns of dropout and change were 

quite different for the treatment arms. This study presented major methodological 

challenges to PRO data analysis, all of which were addressed using state-of the-art 

modeling techniques. The analysis plan and results may be useful for statisticians, 

researchers and clinicians who analyze and interpret PROs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION 

OF ATTORNEY 

Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Constance J. Yu, attest that concurrence in e-filing this CONSENT ORDER 

GRANTING SUBSTIUTION OF ATTORNEY has been obtained from signatories Adam 

Wolek of Taft Stettinius & Hollister and David A. Makman and Daniel Saeedi of Makman & 

Matz LLP, in compliance with L.R. 5-1(i)(3). 

DATED: November 13, 2019 PUTTERMAN YU LLP

By: /s/ Constance J. Yu 

Constance J. Yu 

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

PARKRIDGE LIMITED and MABEL MAK 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 78 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof The Wornick Company (the “Company”) for the thirteen week period ended April 2,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael M. Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  May 11, 2005

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Michael M. Thompson               |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Michael M. Thompson                   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Regina Bourdais VOLPE v. Salvador VOLPE, Jr.

NO. 2019-C-0479

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KELVIN DWIGHT PRICE, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-2135-R

) ECF

NFN VICKERY, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made a report and recommendation in this case (Doc.

25) on plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case (Doc. 23). No objections were filed. The District Court

reviewed the report and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the District Court accepts

the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2007.

___________________________________

JERRY BUCHMEYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Brian Michael CHIPMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1000

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 12, 2019

Brian Michael Chipman, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WESTOVER,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-2916 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The application attacks a conviction issued by the Santa Clara County Court. While both 

this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted have 

jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses 

and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more readily available in 

Santa Clara County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dated: December 23, 2016

west2916.108

Case 3:16-cv-07404-LB Document 4 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

***SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bank (the “Company”) on Form 10–QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven W. Ledbetter,Chief Financial 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Steven W. Ledbetter |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Steven W. Ledbetter     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 17, 2005       |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-73035, 222-98665, 333-116372, and 333-122408) pertaining to the various stock issuanceprograms; and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-56618) of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro,Inc. of our reports dated March 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofP. F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2005.              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         
Phoenix, Arizona
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2558

___________

Robert F. Baker, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

B. Boyle; Pottawattamie County Jail, * Southern District of Iowa.

Members of the Medical Staff; *

R.N., S.W., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 19, 2009

Filed: June 25, 2009

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Baker (Baker) appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

After careful review, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999)

(stating a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo), we conclude dismissal
-2-

was proper because the record before the district court showed Baker did not complete

the third step of Pottawattamie County Jail’s grievance procedure, see 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (declaring, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”); Woodford v. Ngo,

548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means using

all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly”); Johnson v. Jones, 340

F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available

administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at

the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”), and nothing in the record indicates this

step in the procedure was unavailable to Baker, see Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684,

688 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding an inmate’s subjective beliefs, logical or otherwise,

are irrelevant in determining whether administrative procedures are available).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Baker’s motion to obtain state court

transcripts. See Huelsman v. Civic Ctr. Corp., 873 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1989)

(relating that “[a]n appellate court can properly consider only the record and facts

before the district court and thus only those papers and exhibits filed in the district

court can constitute the record on appeal”).

______________________________