alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020103EN.01000701.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/7

---

Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2019 in Case T-410/18, Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-418/19 P)

(2020/C 103/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. (represented by: H. Wollmann, D. Seeliger, R. Grafunder and V. Weiss, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 29 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 872 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 872

 To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of 
  which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is 
   considered to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of 
                    certain activities on the land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of 
  which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is 
   considered to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of 
                    certain activities on the land.

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

SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA.

    Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law 106-
568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Notwithstanding'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Acceptance of Land.--Notwithstanding'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Declaration.--The Secretary''; and
            (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class II Gaming.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Lytton 
        Rancheria of California may conduct activities for class II 
        gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) on the land taken into trust under this 
        section.
            ``(2) Requirement.--The Lytton Rancheria of California 
        shall not expand the exterior physical measurements of any 
        facility on the Lytton Rancheria in use for class II gaming 
        activities on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
    ``(d) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class III Gaming.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), for purposes of class III gaming (as 
defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
2703)), the land taken into trust under this section shall be treated, 
for purposes of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
U.S.C. 2719), as if the land was acquired on October 9, 2003, the date 
on which the Secretary took the land into trust.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         261,663
<SECURITIES>                                     8,566
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,608)
<INVENTORY>                                     78,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,570
<PP&E>                                          15,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                     371,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,886
<SALES>                                         58,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,759
<CGS>                                           37,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (175)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,065)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       918
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,983)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37765-37766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15149]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Service Contract Inventory; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is publishing this notice to advise 
the public of the availability of its FY 2018 Service Contracts 
Inventory and Inventory Supplement. The inventory includes service 
contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in Fiscal Year (FY) 
2018. The inventory

[[Page 37766]]

supplement includes information collected from contractors on the 
amount invoiced and direct labor hours expended for covered service 
contracts. The Department of Justice analyzes this data for the purpose 
of determining whether its contract labor is being used in an effective 
and appropriate manner and if the mix of federal employees and 
contractors in the agency is effectively balanced. The inventory and 
supplement do not include contractor proprietary or sensitive 
information. The FY 2018 Service Contract Inventory and Inventory 
Supplements are provided at the following link: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/service-contract-inventory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Doss, Office of Acquisition 
Management, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530; Phone: 202-616-3758; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105b7566797e3e547f6363506563747f7a3e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e153b283730701a312d2d1e2b2d3a313470393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Authority: Section 743 of Division C of the FY 2010 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 111-117.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021-15149 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2019357EN.01002301.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2019 — Fototre Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-595/19)

(2019/C 357/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fototre Srl

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

Questions referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici s.p.a, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

---
#### CLASON v. NASSAU FERRY CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 11, 1898.)

Corporations—Inspection op Books—Counsel Fees.

"Where a stockholder, applying for mandamus to compel an inspection of the corporation books, obtains only part of the relief demanded, he cannot recover counsel fees, it being impossible to separate the services rendered in obtaining the relief he was entitled to from the remainder.

Appeal from appellate term.

Action by Augustus Clason against the Nassau Ferry Company and another. From a judgment of the appellate term of the supreme court (45 N. Y. Supp. 675) modifying a judgment of the general term of the city court, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PATTERSON, O’BRIEN,

McLaughlin, and ingraham, jj.

L. Laflin Kellogg, for appellant.

Sol. Hanford, for respondents.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

We might rest our decision of this case upon the opinion of the court on the appeal, but we think there is another .ground upon which its judgment may be sustained. It appears that the plaintiff, in his demand upon the corporation to see the corporation books, made the same in such broad terms that the corporation was justified in refusing it. The proceedings were instituted by the plaintiff for the enforcement of this demand; and it was decided at the special term that he was entitled to the relief which he asked for; but upon appeal to the general term it was held that he was only entitled to a portion of such relief, and he obtained an order granting him relief to that extent, without costs of the appeal. It is impossible to separate the services rendered in this proceeding, in the attempt to enforce that part of the relief which was denied, from those which were rendered in respect to the relief granted. It was evident that the plaintiff was of the opinion that he was entitled to the whole of such relief, and his efforts were directed to that end. As a consequence, he cannot now be heard to say that this word was spoken and act done for the purpose of obtaining one branch of the relief sought, and the other word spoken and act done for the obtaining of the other branch of the relief. The whole application was one application. As a whole, the court held that it was rightfully denied. Consequently, there was no basis for a recovery for the value of the alleged services rendered in respect to that application.

The determination appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuantto the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute apart of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

In connection withthe Report, we, Hong Liang Lu and Michael J. Sophie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

Dated:  June 3, 2005
| By:    | /s/ HONG LIANG  LU                                                                              |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Hong Liang Lu                                                                             |
|   | Title: *President and Chief  Executive Officer*                                                 |
| By:    | /s/ MICHAEL J. SOPHIE                                                                           |   |
|   | Name: Michael J. Sophie                                                                         |
|   | Title: *Executive Vice President,  Chief Operating Officer, and Acting Chief Financial Officer* |

 

  

----
Exhibit
4.4

    


     

    AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE

    TO THE
COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC. LOCAL DIRECTORS

    COMPENSATION
AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PLAN

    


    AS
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 23, 2009

    


    The
Compass Bancshares, Inc. Local Directors Compensation and Business Development
Plan, effective as of October 22, 2007 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as
follows:

    


    (1)  The
second sentence of Section 4 is removed in its entirety, and in lieu thereof,
the following sentence is substituted in its place:

    


    “The number of BBVA ADSs that may be
acquired by Participants
pursuant to the Plan shall not exceed an aggregate of 535,093, subject to the
adjustments provided for in section 11.”

    


    (2) All
other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
#### CRAWFORD v. McCARTHY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by William J. Crawford against Isabella McCarthy.

No opinion. Motion dismissed. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 436.
# C_2020019EN.01003401.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (France) lodged on 5 November 2019 — MN

(Case C-813/19)

(2020/C 19/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d'Aix-en-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MN

Other parties: RJA, RJO, FD, BG, PG, KL, LK, MJ, NI, OH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant by the French prosecuting authorities, as provided for in Articles 695-16 et seq. of the Code de procédure pénale (Code of criminal procedure), fully satisfy the requirements for effective judicial protection within the meaning of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant by the French prosecuting authorities, as provided for in Articles 695-16 et seq. of the Code de procédure pénale (Code of criminal procedure), fully satisfy the requirements for effective judicial protection within the meaning of EU law?

| 2. | Do the French prosecuting authorities fulfil the requirements for classification as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the French prosecuting authorities fulfil the requirements for classification as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002? (1)

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)

---
**Exhibit 12.3**
I, Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Vale Overseas Limited;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’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 designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
          Date: June 10, 2004                           /s/ Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Name:  Fabio de Oliveira Barbosa   Title:  Director and Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Kinetek, Inc., an
Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q (the "Quarterly Report") of the Registrant for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m (a)) and that the information contained in the
Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ Daniel D. Drury
--------------------------------
Daniel D. Drury
Chief Financial Officer


                                       21
#### EX PARTE BARNETT.

(Decided Jan. 2nd, 1908.)

Original petition in Supreme Court.

B. T. Pi-iidlips, for petitioner.

Albert E. Barnett, pro se.

Affirmed.

Per curiam.
#### McDERMOTT, Respondent, v. O’REILLY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Michael McDermott, as administrator, etc., against James O’Reilly, as executor, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.