alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019220EN.01000501.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir

(Case C-694/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 15 - Contract concluded by a consumer - Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Articles 2 and 3 - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ - Maximum amount of credit - Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)

(2019/C 220/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement is a credit agreement concluded by a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15, it must not be determined whether the agreement falls within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question does not exceed the ceiling set out in Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it is irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive does not provide for a higher ceiling.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Elizabeth Plaza, certifies that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc.
("Pharma-Bio Serv");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. Pharma-Bio Serv's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for Pharma-Bio Serv 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 Pharma-Bio Serv, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Pharma-Bio Serv'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 Pharma-Bio Serv's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during its most recent fiscal
quarter (Pharma-Bio Serv's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, Pharma-Bio Serv's internal control over financial reporting.

5. Pharma-Bio Serv's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reportings to
Pharma-Bio Serv's auditors and the audit committee of Pharma-Bio Serv'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
likely to adversely affect Pharma-Bio Serv'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 Pharma-Bio Serv's internal controls
over financial reporting.

                                /s/ Elizabeth Plaza
                                -------------------
                                Elizabeth Plaza
                                Chief Executive Officer

Dated: September 11, 2006

                                       32
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Financial Condition

September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010

(unaudited)

September 30

2011

December 31

2010

Assets

 Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 8,154,195 $ 149,831,122

 Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 3,254,011,339 2,974,340,739

 Accrued Interest Receivable 19,920,736 21,543,852

 Premiums Receivable 74,133,000 79,969,000

Total Assets $ 3,356,219,270 $ 3,225,684,713

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

 Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $ 258,084 $ 339,113

 Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 3,355,961,186 3,225,345,600

 Total Insurance Fund 3,355,961,186 3,225,345,600

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund $ 3,356,219,270 $ 3,225,684,713
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Revenue and Expense

For the Period Ended September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010

(unaudited)

Calendar Year To Date

September 30, 2011

Calendar Year To Date

September30, 2010

Income

 Premiums $ 74,115,000 $ 63,596,545

 Interest Income on Investments 58,865,224 49,444,909

 Gain/(Loss) on Disposition of Investments 0 14,548

Total Income $ 132,980,224 $ 113,056,002

Expenses

 Administrative Operating Expenses $ 2,364,638 $ 2,230,089

Total Expenses $ 2,364,638 $ 2,230,089

Net Income $ 130,615,586 $ 110,825,913

Statement of Changes in Insurance Fund 

For Period Ended September 30, 2011

(unaudited)

Balance at January 1, 2011 $ 3,225,345,600

Net Income 130,615,586

Balance at September 30, 2011 $ 3,355,961,186
Jakael Reyvon TOLEFREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3299

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
The Board of Directors
TCI Music, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No 333-44245) on Form S-8 of TCI Music, Inc. of our report dated February 20,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of TCI Music, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the six month period
ended December 31, 1997, and relating to the consolidated balance sheets of DMX
Inc. and subsidiaries (Predecessor) as of June 30, 1997 and the related
consolidated statement of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash
flows for the nine months ended June 30, 1997 and the years ended September 30,
1996 and 1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report of
Form 10-K of TCI Music, Inc.



                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 30, 1998
Robert A. JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-3644

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
John POULLARD v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2010-CI-1179

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

Denied.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 1 8 - 00 241 - C

V

________________________ ANNETTE MANCILLAS , APPELLANT

V. LUBBOCK WILD WINGS, LTD., WESTEX WINGS MANAGEMENT, LC,

HOWBRO INVESTMENTS, LTD . , HOW NO. 1, AND BUFFALO WILD WINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC. , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 99 th District Court Lubbock C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 2017 - 524,467 ; Honorable William C. Sowder , Presiding July 17 , 201 8 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Appellant, Annette Mancillas, appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Lubbock Wild Wings, Ltd. 1 but has not paid the required

1 The trial court’s order granting Lubbock Wild Wings , Ltd . ’ s motion for summary judgment does not address Mancillas’s claims against the other defendants. The order states, however, “[t]his order disposes of all claims and parties, making it final and appealable.” See Lehmann v. Har - Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).2

filing fee. By letter dated June 19, 2018, the clerk of this c ourt advised Mancillas that a filing fee of $205 was overdue and that unless she was e xcused from paying costs under appellate r ule 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by June 29 would result in dismissal of the appeal without further no tice. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1, 42.3(c). To date, Mancillas has not responded to the clerk’s letter , paid the filing fee, made other arrangements , or sought to proceed without payment of costs . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 12.1(b) , 20.1 . Unless a party is excused from p aying a filing fee, the clerk of this c ourt is required to collect filing fees set by statute or by the Texas Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See id. at 5, 12.1(b). Although the filing of a proper notice of appeal invoke s an appellate court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. Id . at 25.1(b). Accordingly, having provided Mancillas a reasonable opportunity to cure this defect, this appeal is dismissed for Mancillas ’s failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and with a notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified time. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). Per Curiam
Jorge SORIA, DOC #T33854, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-647

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

Bryant R. Camareno, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.9


 


2008 Senior Management Incentive Bonus Plan


 


Participants:          Marc
D. Grodman, MD, CEO


Howard Dubinett, COO


Sam Singer, CFO


Charles T. Todd, Sr. VP Marketing & Sales


John Littleton, VP Sales


Warren Erdmann, VP Operations


Sally Howlett, VP Billing


Nick Papazicos, VP Financial Operations


Nick Cetani, VP Laboratory Director


James Weisberger, MD, CMO


Maryanne Amato, Director, Genpath


Cory Fishkin, COO CareEvolve


Richard L. Faherty, CIO


 


Proposed Plan:


 


	
  A.

  	
   

  	
  The Senior Management Incentive Bonus Plan
  will be based on Operating Income as a per cent of Total Net Revenues
  pursuant to the standard financial documents of the Company.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  B.

  	
   

  	
  There will be one class of participation.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  C.

  	
   

  	
  Operating Income shall consist of the Total
  Operating Income (hereinafter referred to as “TOI”) for the Entire Company
  including all divisions and subsidiaries.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  D.

  	
   

  	
  In the event that TOI shall be equal to or
  greater than 10.50%, then and in such event, the participants will be
  entitled to a bonus based on the participant’s annual gross wages exclusive
  of any bonus, option exercise, auto expense charge-back, or other unearned
  revenue, pursuant to the following schedule:

  



 


	
  If TOI is greater than

  	
   

  	
  and less than

  	
   

  	
  Percent Bonus

  	
   

  
	
  10.49

  	
  %

  	
  11.00

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  
	
  11.00

  	
  %

  	
  11.51

  	
  %

  	
  15

  	
  %

  
	
  11.50

  	
  %

  	
  12.00

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  12.00

  	
  %

  	
  12.51

  	
  %

  	
  25

  	
  %

  
	
  12.50

  	
  %

  	
  13.00

  	
  %

  	
  30

  	
  %

  
	
  13.00

  	
  %

  	
  13.51

  	
  %

  	
  35

  	
  %

  
	
  13.50

  	
  %

  	
  14.00

  	
  %

  	
  40

  	
  %

  
	
  14.00

  	
  %

  	
  14.51

  	
  %

  	
  45

  	
  %

  
	
  14.50

  	
  %

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
  %

  



 


	
  E.

  	
   

  	
  The maximum bonus to be paid under this
  program will be 50% of annual wages regardless of TOI.
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GRADY LOUIS, #554236, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ NO. 3:05-CV-1396-L 

CRAIG WATKINS, et al., § 

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 by a prisoner against

his former attorney, an Assistant District Attorney and Officer Tommy Pope of the Abilene Police

Department. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof,

this action was referred to the United States magistrate judge for proposed findings and

recommendation. On June 13, 2005, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge were filed, to which no objections were filed. 

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions

of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions are correct in

recommending: (i) dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Tommy

Pope regarding the planting of drugs and lying to Plaintiff’s parole officer, until such time as

Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 521 U.S. 447 (1994); (ii) dismissal

of Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(B)

without regard to future satisfaction of the Heck conditions; and (iii) that dismissal of this action will

count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, the

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01396-L Document 13 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 73
Order – Page 2

magistrate judge’s findings are accepted as those of the court. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer

Tommy Pope regarding the planting of drugs and lying to Plaintiff’s parole officer are dismissed

with prejudice as frivolous until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck,

supra. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(B) without regard to future satisfaction of the Heck conditions. Dismissal

of this action will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

A final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice will issue by separate document. 

It is so ordered this 21st day of September, 2006.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01396-L Document 13 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 74
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
BankFinancial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Morgan Gasior, Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------
|/s/ F. MORGAN GASIOR                                         |  |  |  |  |  | Dated: August 1, 2012
|F. Morgan Gasior                                             |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  |  |  |  |                      

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







70
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1079

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Jason Robertson, also known as Duke, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 9, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jason Robertson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intentto distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, the dis trict court 1 denied Robertson’s motion for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13, p.s. (1998) for diminished capacity, but granted the government’s motion to depart based on Robertson’s substantial a ssistance. The court then sentenced Robertson to 48 months’ imprisonment and five-2-

years’ supervised release. After appellate counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Ande rs v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we granted Robertson permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We now affirm. The Anders brief contends that the court erred in denying Robertson’s motion for a departure under section 5K2.13. Considering the district court’s comments as awhole, see United States v. Knight , 96 F.3d 307, 311 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1180 (1997), we conclude that the court was aware of its authority to depart for diminished capacity and that the court’s exercise of discretion not to depart under the circumstances is unreviewable, see Unit ed States v. Field , 110 F.3d 587, 591 (8th Cir. 1997) (absent unconstitutional motive, discretionary decision not to depart from Guidelines is unreviewable on appeal). Upon review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0367

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STORMI RENEA WILKES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including April 14, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2020

03/09/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0367
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

To the Receiver and Stockholders of 

Medical Device Alliance Inc. and Subsidiaries: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Medical Device Alliance Inc. and its subsidiaries of our report,dated August 7, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Medical Device Alliance Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flowsfor the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 Registration Statement on Form 10-SB of Medical Device Alliance Inc. 

 

/s/ Farber & Hass, LLP 

 

Oxnard, California 

November 14, 2003
David F. BEAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Seth GOODMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2604

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert Earl HAYES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2983

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Robert Earl Hayes, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.