alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019406EN.01001401.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 September 2019 — A.M. v E.M.

(Case C-667/19)

(2019/C 406/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: E.M.

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far as it provides that the container and packaging of cosmetic products should bear in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering information as to the function of the cosmetic product, unless it is clear from its presentation, should Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as referring to the essential functions of cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation, that is, cleaning (keeping clean), nurturing and protecting (keeping in good condition), perfuming and beautifying (changing appearance), or should more detailed functions be stated, enabling the properties of the cosmetic product in question to be determined? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as it provides that the container and packaging of cosmetic products should bear in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering information as to the function of the cosmetic product, unless it is clear from its presentation, should Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as referring to the essential functions of cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation, that is, cleaning (keeping clean), nurturing and protecting (keeping in good condition), perfuming and beautifying (changing appearance), or should more detailed functions be stated, enabling the properties of the cosmetic product in question to be determined?

| 2. | Should Article 19(2) and recital 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (g) and (f), namely, precautions, ingredients and functions, may be stated in a company’s catalogue which also includes other products, by placing the symbol set out in point 1 of Annex VII on the packaging? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 19(2) and recital 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (g) and (f), namely, precautions, ingredients and functions, may be stated in a company’s catalogue which also includes other products, by placing the symbol set out in point 1 of Annex VII on the packaging?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.

---
#### Bonnie Cruickshank WALLACE; The Wallace Family Trust; Holly Hall Publications, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MERCANTILE COUNTY BANK, f/k/a County Banking and Trust Company; Raymond Hamm, Jr.; Gebhardt & Smith, LLP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-2144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 8, 2009.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bonnie Cruickshank Wallace, the Wallace Family Trust, and Holly Hall Publications, Inc. (“Appellants”), appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on their claims alleging malicious use of process and abuse of process. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as *721well as the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wallace v. Mercantile Cnty Bank,*514 F.Supp.2d 776 (D.Md.2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
  Written
        Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350,
 as
        Adopted by
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
        "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert V. McLemore,
        President and Founder, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
        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)
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition as of December 31, 2004 and results of operations
        for
        the year ended December 31, 2004 of the Company and its
        subsidiaries.
  Date: April
                    5,
                    2006
                  By:
                  /s/ Robert
                    V.
                    McLemoreName:
                    Robert V. McLemoreTitle:  President
                    and Founder (Principal Executive
                    Officer)
  This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
#### RUSSELL, Respondent, v. STUHLMILLER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Joel W. Russell, as assignee, etc., against William F. Stuhlmiller.

No opinion. Order-denying motion to strike cause from calendar reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order denying defendant’s motion to vacate-judgment reversed, with costs. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Appeal from judgment dismissed, without costs. See Walker v. Chilson (Sup.) 20 N. Y. Supp. 527.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0366

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ERICA ANN DION,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 19, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2021

03/12/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0366
# C_2019148EN.01002401.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Action brought on 15 February 2019 — European Court of Auditors v Karel Pinxten

(Case C-130/19)

(2019/C 148/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: C. Lesauvage, E. von Bardeleben, J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Karel Pinxten

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that Mr Pinxten no longer meets the obligations arising from his office under Articles 285 and 286 TFEU and the rules adopted in application thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Mr Pinxten no longer meets the obligations arising from his office under Articles 285 and 286 TFEU and the rules adopted in application thereof;

| — | Impose, consequently, the penalty laid down in Article 286(6) TFEU, the Court of Auditors leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the scope; |
| --- | --- |

—

Impose, consequently, the penalty laid down in Article 286(6) TFEU, the Court of Auditors leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the scope;

| — | Order Mr Pinxten to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Mr Pinxten to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of Auditors complains that Mr Pinxten:

| — | firstly, made improper use of the resources of the Court of Auditors in order to finance activities with no connection or incompatible with his duties as a Member; |
| --- | --- |

—

firstly, made improper use of the resources of the Court of Auditors in order to finance activities with no connection or incompatible with his duties as a Member;

| — | secondly, made improper and unlawful use of tax privileges; |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, made improper and unlawful use of tax privileges;

| — | thirdly, made false insurance claims in the context of alleged accidents involving the service vehicle made available to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

thirdly, made false insurance claims in the context of alleged accidents involving the service vehicle made available to him;

| — | fourthly, exercised managed activities for a commercial company and intense political activity within a political party although he was in the service of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

—

fourthly, exercised managed activities for a commercial company and intense political activity within a political party although he was in the service of the Court of Auditors;

| — | fifthly, created a situation of conflict of interests by making a service offer to an official of an audited entity. |
| --- | --- |

—

fifthly, created a situation of conflict of interests by making a service offer to an official of an audited entity.

---
# C_2019413EN.01002301.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/23

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2019 in Case T-138/18, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case C-591/19 P)

(2019/C 413/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 11 June 2019 (T-138/18); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 11 June 2019 (T-138/18);

| — | dismiss the action brought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought at first instance;

| — | order Mr De Esteban to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Mr De Esteban to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, alleging an incorrect legal classification of the facts in the light of Article 4 of Commission Decision No 1999/396, the Commission submits that the General Court should not have held that Mr De Esteban had to be ‘treated in the same way’ as the persons referred to by name in the note sent by OLAF to the French authorities on 19 March 2003 or at the very least regarded as being personally involved in the facts, whereas the person concerned did not fall within any of those categories.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1073/1999 according to which the institutions must take ‘such action, in particular disciplinary or legal,’ on the report submitted by OLAF ‘as the results ... warrant’. The Commission claims that that provision cannot be interpreted a contrario as limiting the discretion available to it in the defence of the European Union’s interests and, in particular, as prohibiting it from appearing as a civil party in criminal proceedings and from filing a criminal complaint before the national authorities where it deems it appropriate in the light of the information available to it, including at a stage prior to the adoption of any OLAF report.

By its third ground of appeal, relied on in the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court could not uphold the action for compensation since there was no causal link. The General Court unduly departed from its case-law according to which there is no sufficiently direct causal link between the forwarding of information by OLAF to the national authorities and the harm allegedly suffered.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 14, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00570

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Olga HURON and Dianna Rico,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV05317

Honora ble J Frank Davis , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justi ce

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                          SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                                     81,466
<SECURITIES>                                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           81,757
<PP&E>                                                                     45,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             20,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                            658,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      33,793
<BONDS>                                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                                  129,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                494,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                              658,375
<SALES>                                                                     7,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            7,290
<CGS>                                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           54,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                           (46,952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       (46,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              (46,952)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                              (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              (.007)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

p0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141031

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141031 COA: 296313 Macomb CC: 08-001853-FH STEPHEN FRANK HEYZA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Macomb County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this
order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
# C_2019305EN.01002802.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/28

---

Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-283/18: Bernis e.a. v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-552/19 P)

(2019/C 305/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Forms of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-283/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-283/18;

| — | declare that the application for annulment is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellants' costs and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellants' costs and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants put forward two pleas in law in support of their appeal:

| 1) | That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1)

That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted.

| 2) | That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1). |
| --- | --- |

2)

That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).

---
Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors
Young Innovations, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  registration  statements Nos.
333-61572, 333-65673 and 333-57742 on Form S-8 of Young Innovations, Inc. of our
report dated February 3, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of
Young Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and the related
consolidated  statements of income,  stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year ended  December 31, 2002,  and the related  financial  statement  schedule,
which  report  appears in the  December  31, 2002 annual  report on Form 10-K of
Young Innovations, Inc.

Our  report  refers to our audit of the  transitional  disclosures  required  by
Statement  of  Financial  Accounting  Standards  No.  142,  Goodwill  and  Other
Intangible   Assets,  to  revise  the  2001  and  2000  consolidated   financial
statements,  as more fully  described  in Note 9 to the  consolidated  financial
statements.  However,  we were  not  engaged  to  audit,  review  or  apply  any
procedures to the 2001 and 2000  consolidated  financial  statements  other than
with respect to such disclosures.


/s/ KPMG LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
March 19, 2003
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 40 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-36304) pertaining to
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 47.

    


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
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 March 31, 2006 (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 6, 2007



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|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