alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019399EN.01002701.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 30 August 2019 — RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA v Município de Peso da Régua

(Case C-643/19)

(2019/C 399/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RESOPRE — Sociedade Revendedora de Aparelhos de Precisão SA

Defendant: Município de Peso da Régua,

Other parties to the proceedings: DATAREDE — Sistemas de Dados e Comunicações, SA, Alexandre Barbosa Borgesm, SA, Fernando L. Gaspar — Sinalização e Equipamentos Rodoviários, SA

Question referred

In a pre-contractual public procurement procedure relating to a concession for the exploitation of plots of land to install and operate [parking meters] and control compliance with the provisions laid down in the municipal regulation on short-stay paid parking zones in force in the municipality, does EU law (in particular, Articles 56(1) and 60(4) of Directive 2014/24/[EU] (1) and the principle of competition) allow the instructions for tenderers to establish that tenderers must submit the software and equipment (the parking meter) to be supplied, in order to demonstrate both that the tenderer complies with the terms and conditions in the contract documents and the characteristics of the tenders, and to establish an award criterion related to the ‘technical and functional suitability of the solution’ factor, to be assessed on the basis of that demonstration (see paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Instructions for Tenderers)?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifton Sneed, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered May 31, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s arrest history and his admitted involvement in a robbery in which a firearm was used provided a sound basis for the trial court’s decision to deny him treatment as a youthful offender *(see, People v Raphael,*109 AD2d 899). While certain of defense counsel’s remarks at the sentencing hearing might, from defendant’s viewpoint, have been better left unsaid, it is evident that they had no impact upon the sentence imposed, which was the one for which counsel had effectively *677bargained. Under the circumstances, it cannot reasonably be contended that counsel’s performance resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the defense *(see, People v Adams,*110 AD2d 772, 773), or that defendant was denied meaningful representation *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lonzo Thompson, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J.—attempted burglary, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
# C_2021357EN.01002101.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission

(Case T-716/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine - Interim review - Calculation of the normal value - Selling, general and administrative costs - Sales between related companies - Ordinary course of trade - Single economic entity - Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Export price - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment - Methodology different from that used in a previous investigation - Article 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 357/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube LLC (Nikopol, Ukraine), Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ 2019 L 204, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Interpipe Niko Tube LLC and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Interpipe Niko Tube LLC and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant OJSC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15166]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2019 Service Contract 
Inventory

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is publishing 
this notice to advise the public of the availability of CFTC's Fiscal 
Year 2019 Service Contract Inventory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Kathryn Rison, Contracting 
Officer, at 202-418-5419 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda6bfa4bea2a38daeabb9aee3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5bea7bca6babb95b6b3a1b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 743 of division C 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, 123 
Stat. 3034, CFTC is publishing this notice to advise the public of the 
availability of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Service Contract Inventory. 
CFTC has posted its inventory documents on the agency website at the 
following link: https://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCReports/index.htm.
    This inventory provides information on service contracts above the 
Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($150,000), as determined by the base 
and all options value, that were awarded in FY 2019. CFTC's service 
contract inventory data is included in the government-wide inventory, 
which can be filtered to display the CFTC-specific data. A link to the 
government-wide inventory is included in the posting on the CFTC 
website, or it can be accessed directly at https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory.
    The inventory documents posted on the CFTC website also include the 
CFTC FY 2018 Service Contract Inventory Analysis (dated February 20, 
2020). This report provides information about the Product Service Codes 
that the CFTC analyzed from the 2018 inventory.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-15166 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2019288EN.01002201.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

(Case C-380/19)

(2019/C 288/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendants: Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the information obligation under Article 13(2) of the Directive, (1) to provide the information pursuant to Article 13(1) in the general terms and conditions, already arise when the trader makes the general terms and conditions available for download on his website, on which no contracts are concluded? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the information obligation under Article 13(2) of the Directive, (1) to provide the information pursuant to Article 13(1) in the general terms and conditions, already arise when the trader makes the general terms and conditions available for download on his website, on which no contracts are concluded?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions in such a case if he provides the information not in the file made available for download, but elsewhere on the company’s website? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions in such a case if he provides the information not in the file made available for download, but elsewhere on the company’s website?

| 3. | Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions if he provides the consumer with — in addition to a document containing the general terms and conditions — a list of prices and services also drawn up by the trader in a separate document containing the information pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions if he provides the consumer with — in addition to a document containing the general terms and conditions — a list of prices and services also drawn up by the trader in a separate document containing the information pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63).

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 21-0313

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

his pro se civil complaint.1 The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases 

and Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. 

Const. art. III, § 2), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1167 (2009). “One element of the case-or-controversy 

requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Comm. on Judiciary 

of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “(1) 

suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, 

and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Lujan 

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).

1

 Because Williams is the only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and because Williams is not authorized to represent other parties, the Court proceeds as 

if he is the sole plaintiff.

2/4/2021
Plaintiff’s suit arises from the events of January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., including 

the former President’s speech allegedly inciting an attack on the United States Capitol. 

According to Plaintiff, the former President’s speech allegedly contained an implicit promise to 

pardon the rioters. He further alleges that his promise violated the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition to monetary and punitive damages, 

Plaintiff demands a court order suspending “Article II[,] Section 2[,] Clause 1 of the 

Constitution” on the ground that the pardon power is “unconstitutional[] . . . on its face” and 

“maintain[s] . . . violence.” Dkt. 1 at 10.

Missing from the complaint are any factual allegations establishing that plaintiff 

sustained (or is likely to sustain) an injury resulting from the former President’s actions or any 

other event occurring on January 6, 2021. “[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available 

grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper 

application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly 

benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or 

controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74. 

Because plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to establish standing, the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. 

A separate order will issue.

/s/

RANDOLPH D. MOSS

United States District Judge

DATE: February 4, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilberto Soler, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eve M. Preminger, J.), rendered September 10, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree and sentencing him to 3 *Vi*to 7 years’ imprisonment, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce defendant’s sentence to a prison term of 3 to 6 years and, as so modified, affirmed.

In exchange for defendant’s guilty plea he was promised that he would receive the minimum sentence permitted by law under the circumstances for the crime charged. Defendant was a second felony offender. The minimum sentence for a predicate felon for burglary in the second degree, a class C felony, is an indeterminate prison term of from 3 to 6 years (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [c]; [4] [b]), not 3 *Vi*to 7 years as was originally thought. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
### TEXAS COUR T OF APPEALS, THIRD DIST RICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00025-CV Gina Cole

Wiegma n, Appellant v. Michael Wiegman, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 02-0855, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N

D U M O P

I N I O N Appellant Gina Cole

Wiegman

has requ ested a n inety -d ay abateme

nt in orde

r to secure a signed , final judgment. We grant her reque st and abate the appeal for ninety days. The appeal will be reinstated upon the tender of a final judgment or July 11, 2005, w

hicheve r comes f irst.

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law , Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Filed: April 8, 2005
# C_2021242EN.01002401.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Achema and Lifosa v Commission

(Case T-300/19) (1)

(State aid - Market in electricity generated from renewable energy sources - Operating aid - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Infringement of procedural rights - 2008 Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection - 2014 Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Article 30 TFEU - Article 110 TFEU - Body of consistent evidence)

(2021/C 242/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania), Lifosa AB (Kedainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Righini and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 9209 final of 8 January 2019 on State aid SA.45765 (2018/NN), concerning an aid scheme implemented by the Republic of Lithuania in support of producers of electricity from renewable energy sources (OJ 2019 C 61, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2018) 9209 final of 8 January 2019 on State aid SA.45765 (2018/NN), concerning an aid scheme implemented by the Republic of Lithuania in support of producers of electricity from renewable energy sources; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2018) 9209 final of 8 January 2019 on State aid SA.45765 (2018/NN), concerning an aid scheme implemented by the Republic of Lithuania in support of producers of electricity from renewable energy sources;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Achema AB and Lifosa AB; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Achema AB and Lifosa AB;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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.

Date: May 12, 2006

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH Fred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
ABN AMRO

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.

4242 North Harlem Avenue

Norridge, Illinois 60706 1283

(708) 583 7579

Mary Pat Sperlik

First Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 

The undersigned, an officer of ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., (the "participant"), hereby certifies as follows:

I have made, or caused to be made under my supervision, a review of the activities of ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. during the preceding calendar year ending December 31, 2002, with respect to performance under the Servicing Certificates attached:

and
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, there is as of this date, no default by ABN AMRO in the fulfillment of any of it's obligations under these issues, except as otherwise noted in the Management Report related to each issue.

In witness whereof the undersigned has this Certificate of Compliance this 1st day of March, 2003.

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, In.

By:	*Mary P. Sperlik
	Mary P. Sperlik

	First Vice President

					

 

 

 

Banks and Other Lending Offices: ABN AMRO Mortgage, LaSalle Bank N.A., LaSalle Home Mortgage, Standard Federal Bank NA

 

Affiliates: LaSalle Bank, LaSalle Home Mortgage, Standard Federal Bank

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banks and Other Lending Offices: ABN AMRO Mortgage, LaSalle Bank N.A., LaSalle Home Mortgage, Standard Federal Bank NA
** 

     Master Servicing Certificates

PROGRAM NUMBER:							
ABN98001

ABN98002

ABN98003

ABN98004

ABN98005

ABN99001

ABN99002

ABN99003

ABN99004

ABN99005

ABN99006

ABN99007

ABN99008

ABN00001

ABN00002

ABN00003

ABN00004

ABN01002

ABN01003

ABN01005

ABN01006

ABN0101A

ABN01007

ABN01008

ABN02001

ABN02002

ABN02003

ABN02004

ABN0201A

ABN02007

ABN02008

ABN02010

ABN02005

ABN02006

ABN03001

ABN03002

 

 

 

 ***
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.


Dated: August 11, 2003


                               /s/ John R. Hickey
                               ---------------------------------------------
                               Name:   John R. Hickey
                               Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer


THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY
FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934