alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019406EN.01000901.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2019 — Land Baden-Württemberg v D.R.

(Case C-619/19)

(2019/C 406/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant: D.R.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (the Environmental Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all communications which do not leave the internal sphere of an authority which is required to provide information? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (the Environmental Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all communications which do not leave the internal sphere of an authority which is required to provide information?

| 2. | Is the temporal scope of the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive unlimited? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the temporal scope of the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive unlimited?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive apply only until the authority required to provide information has taken a decision or completed any other administrative process? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive apply only until the authority required to provide information has taken a decision or completed any other administrative process?

---

(1)  OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.

---
##### 



Exhibit 1.5 Vale Overseas Limited
(the Company) Written Resolutions of the Sole Shareholder of the Company dated 7th January 2004 made in accordance
with the Articles of Association of the Company The undersigned, being the sole Shareholder of the Company, does hereby RESOLVE
AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTIONthat paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Association,
shall be replaced by the following paragraph:  3.
    
    The objects for which the Company is established are restricted to: (i) acting as a finance company by issuing Securities under the Indenture
described below; and (ii) any activities incidental or related thereto, including the entering
into and performance of its obligations under, and the undertaking of all
actions permitted or contemplated under:  (a)
    
    the indenture made between the Company,
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as
Trustee dated 8 March 2002, together with any supplemental
indenture entered into between the Company, CVRD and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Trustee, in accordance with the terms of that
indenture (the original indenture, together with all
supplemental indentures thereto, the Indenture);(b)
    
    any terms agreement, purchase agreement,
underwriting agreement, registration rights agreement or
other similar agreement entered into in connection with the
issue or sale of any series of Securities (as defined in the
Indenture) in accordance with the terms of the Indenture;(c)
    
    the Account Control Agreement to be made
between the Company as Pledgor, and JPMorgan Chase Bank as
Secured Party, Bank and Securities Intermediary;(d)
    
    the preparation and publication of any offering
memorandum, prospectus, prospectus supplement or similar
document in respect of the offering of any series of
Securities under the Indenture or the listing thereof on any
securities exchange;(e)
    
    the issue of and delivery of Securities in
accordance with any registration rights agreement entered
into in connection with the sale of any series of Securities
issued under the Indenture;(f)
    
    the registration of any series of Securities
issued under the Indenture with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission;(g)
    
    the taking of all actions and the execution,
performance and delivery of all documents necessary,
incidental or ancillary to any of the aforementioned objects,
including, without limitation, the procurement of letters of
credit to support any of the obligations under the Indenture
or any notes to be issued thereunder. Signed For and on behalf of Companhia Vale de Rio Doce: /s/ Fabio Barbosa
    
    /s/ Diego Hernandez
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman  of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly  Report for the period ended January
          31,  2006 (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/ Denis A. Krusos
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Denis A. Krusos
                                           Chairman of the Board and
March 10, 2006                             Chief Executive Officer
#### MARYLAND CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROSE REEVES *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. Franklin W. Kielb*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Burton Peskin*for the respondent.

May 16, 1960.

Denied.
#### In re AMES. In the matter of Paul K. Ames, as receiver of Long Beach Association.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 8, 1898.)

No opinion. Order reversed, and reference directed to Theodore B. Gates to take proof of the matters set forth in the petition, and in the receiver’s answer thereto, and to report proofs, with his opinion, to the court at special term. Ten dollars costs and disbursements to the party finally prevailing in this proceeding.
Exhibit 10.33 Noble CorporationSummary of Directors Compensation Annual Retainer.Each director of Noble Corporation (the Company) who is not an employee of the Company or one of its
subsidiaries (a Non-Employee Director) receives an annual retainer as follows:  
    
    $50,000.  
    
    20% is paid in Ordinary Shares of the Company pursuant to the Noble Corporation Equity Compensation
Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the Equity Compensation Plan).  
    
    Non-Employee Directors may elect to receive up to all of the balance in Ordinary Shares or cash.
Non-Employee Directors make elections on a quarterly basis.  
    
    The number of Ordinary Shares to be issued under the Equity Compensation Plan in any particular
quarter is generally determined using the average of the daily closing prices of the Ordinary Shares for
the last 15 consecutive trading days of the previous quarter. Board Meeting Fees.In addition to the annual retainer received by Non-Employee Directors described above, all
directors receive fees for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended as follows:  
    
    Non-Employee Directors  $2,000 per meeting attended  
    
    Employee Directors  $100 per meeting attended Committee Fees.In addition to the annual retainer and meeting fees described above, each Non-Employee Director
receives compensation in respect of his or her service on committees of the Board of Directors as follows:  
    
    Annual Committee retainers  
    
    Audit Committee Chair  $15,000 per year  
    
    Compensation Committee Chair  $12,500 per year  
    
    All other Committee Chairs  $10,000 per year  
    
    Committee meeting fees  
    
    Audit Committee  $2,500 per meeting attended  
    
    All other Committees  $2,000 per meeting attended  1




---



##### 



Equity Compensation.In addition to the compensation described above, each Non-Employee Director receives equity
compensation under the Noble Corporation 1992 Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Share Plan for Non-Employee
Directors, as amended (the 1992 Plan) as follows:  
    
    An annual award of Restricted Shares or unrestricted Ordinary Shares in an amount determined by the
Board of Directors annually but not to exceed an aggregate of 8,000 shares per Non-Employee Director.  
    
    Each such award of Restricted Shares or unrestricted Ordinary Shares will be made on a date selected
by the Board of Directors, or if no such date is selected by the Board of Directors, the date on which
the Board of Directors takes action approving such award. Employee Directors.Employee Directors do not receive any equity compensation in consideration of their service on the
Board of Directors. Other.All directors are reimbursed for travel, lodging and related expenses they may incur in attending meetings of
the Board of Directors and Committees.  2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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  Annual  Report  of  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10- KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, A.
David Evans,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer 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/ A. David Evans
                                         ------------------
                                         A. David Evans
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         March 31, 2006

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       -1-
# C_2020077EN.01001302.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/13

---

Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Laurence Bonnafous against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-614/17 Bonnafous v EACEA

(Case C-548/19 P)

(2020/C 77/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laurence Bonnafous (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

By order of 27 November 2019, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded.

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.5 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
17th, 2003 on the financial statements of ALUNORTE  Alumina do Norte do Brasil S.A.,
which appear in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended
December 31st, 2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30, 2005
# C_2020087EN.01000202.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2019 — XY v KLM Cityhopper BV

(Case C-829/19)

(2020/C 87/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XY

Defendant: KLM Cityhopper BV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 17 January 2020.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Name of Committee: Safety and Occupational Health Study Section 
(SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    Dates: October 20-21, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: The meeting will convene to address matters related to the 
conduct of Study Section business and for the study section to consider 
safety and occupational health-related grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, 
Morgantown, WV 26506; Telephone: (304) 285-5951; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb3b9b1b2babdbfb3ae9ebdbabdf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="204d474f4c4443414d50604344430e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-15246 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 838 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 838

 To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction 
of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to certain sporting 
  good articles, and to exempt those articles from a definition under 
                               that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Begich, 
 and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction 
of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to certain sporting 
  good articles, and to exempt those articles from a definition under 
                               that Act.

    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 ``Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational 
Shooting Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION.

    Section 3(2)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
2602(2)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (v), by striking ``, and'' and inserting ``, 
        or any component of any such article including, without 
        limitation, shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, 
        and primers,'';
            (2) in clause (vi) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``, and''; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
            ``(vii) any sport fishing equipment (as such term is 
        defined in subparagraph (a) of section 4162 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986) the sale of which is subject to the tax 
        imposed by section 4161(a) of such Code (determined without 
        regard to any exemptions from such tax as provided by section 
        4162 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code), and sport 
        fishing equipment components.''.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00504-CV

In re Ed Jaycox

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We deny Ed Jaycox’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Filed: August 28, 2014
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Statement

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 8, 2008



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Rimas P. Buinevicius
|By:    |  | Rimas P. Buinevicius    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor    
|By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer 



28
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00725-CV

John RICHMOND,

Appellant

v.

VRM (VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT), Duly Authorized Agent for the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CV-03985

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

this appeal are assessed against appellant. 

SIGNED January 17, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### Hodge *v.*The State.

*Larceny.*

(Decided Feb. 13, 1908.

45 South. 900.)

1. *Criminal Law; Offense; Evidence; Jury Question.*— An indictment was preferred at the August term of court and the first witness introduced fixed the time of the commission of the offense as January or February preceding, certainly after Christmas; another witness fixed the time as not longer than six months before going before the grand jury, and another as sometime in October before the spring term of the court at which the indictment was preferred, and the same witness subsequently fixed the time as that' when he heard the property was stolen. Held, not objectionable as fixing an offense different from that charged in the indictment, but left the matter open for the determination of the jury as to when the offense was committed.

2. *Evidence; Hearsay.*— A statement of a witness that he saw accused with the property stolen at the time when he heard that the owner had lost the property was not objectionable as hearsay evidence.

Appeal from Jackson. Circnit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Willis Hodge was convicted of larceny and he appeals.

Affirmed.

' ’ Heard, in fixing the time when the chickens were stolen, said that it was in January or February, and certainly after Christmas, before the indictments was preferred. Phillips, another witness for the state, fixed the time of the larceny as sometime before going before the grand jury, not longer than six months before. Gravly, another witness for the state, fixed the time as some time in October, before the spring term of the court at which the indictment was preferred. The defendant moved to exclude the evidence of Gravly, because fixing an offense different from that charged in the indictment and *8as happening at a different time. The court overruled the objections, and defendant excepted.

Bilbro & Moody, for appellant.

The evidence of Gravly was mere hearsay and should have been ex*cluded.-*— Brooklyn *L. I. Go. v.*Bledsoe, 52 Ala. 588.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

ANDERSON, J.

While the time given in the testimony of Gravly was different from that fixed by Heard, yet it was not entirely in conflict with the time fixed by Phillips.- Heard may have been mistaken as to the date the chickens were stolen, or Gravly may have been mistaken as to the date fixed by him. Moreover he subsequently fixed the time as that when he heard that the chickens were stolen. It was, therefore, for the ju,ry to determine .whether or not the witnesses were all testifying to the same offense. Nor does the fact that the witness Gravly fixed the time that he saw the defendant and others with the chickens as at the time he heard that Heard had lost his chickens violate the rule against hearsay testimony. He did not detail anything he heard —merely fixed a time as at the date of the rumor of a certain event.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J. and Denson and McClellan, JJ., concur.