alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021297EN.01003601.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission

(Case T-575/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Comparative examination of the merits - Assessment criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)

(2021/C 297/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Élise Hill Mansilla (Rodemack, France) (represented by: R. Mbonyumutwa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2018 not to include the applicant’s name in the final list of promoted officials in the 2018 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the non-material and material damages allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Élise Hill Mansilla to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Élise Hill Mansilla to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1096

In re: JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON

,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:14

- hc

- 02009

- FL )

Submitted : June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON

, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan Eugene Brunson , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Eugene Brunson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

court has unduly delayed ruling on his postjudgment mo tion

. He seeks an order from this

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district co urt’s docket reveals

that the district court denied the motion on April 13, 2021

. Accordingly, because the

district court has recently decided Brunson ’s motion , we deny the mandamus petition as

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                       1,297,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,899,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316,029
<INVENTORY>                                  1,020,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,067,717
<PP&E>                                         978,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,488,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,349,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,450
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,963,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,488,155
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,510,324
<CGS>                                        3,769,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,846,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (55,378)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (37,041)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,087,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,087,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,460,080)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,547,771)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.69)
        




</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                            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  on Form  10-Q of  Synovics
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the for the quarterly  period ended
April 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Ronald  Howard Lane,  Principal  Financial  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:

(3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(4)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 21, 2006


By:  /s/ Ronald Howard Lane
     ---------------------------------
     Ronald Howard Lane
     Principal Financial Officer




This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Synovics  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Scott Edwards, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Radix Marine, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.





Date: May 24, 2005
                                    /s/ Scott Edwards
                                    -----------------------
                                    Scott Edwards
                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Promatech, Inc., Appellant, v AFG Group, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[943 NYS2d 478]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 3, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendant AFG Group, Inc. (AFG) to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of General Business Law § 349 and New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Stat Ann § 56:8-2) as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action alleging violations of the General Business Law and New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, plaintiff Promatech and defendant AFG, construction management companies that conduct business within New York and the tri-state area, are often in direct competition with each other. In 2007, plaintiff’s former vice-president went to work for defendant AFG. Plaintiff alleges that defendant thereafter wrongfully represented in advertising and in project proposals that construction management work done by plaintiff was defendant’s work and that this *451misinformation harmed the governmental entities in New York and New Jersey that contracted for construction management services with defendant. Defendant maintains that it was within its rights to advertise the experience of its employee.

The motion court correctly dismissed the cause of action pursuant to General Business Law § 349 since plaintiff failed to plead that defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had a broad impact on consumers at large *(see Natural Organics Inc. v Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.,*67 AD3d 541, 542 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 881 [2010]). Moreover, plaintiff’s alleged “good will” damages are derivative in nature and thus nonrecoverable *(see City of New York v Smokes-Spirits.Com, Inc.,*12 NY3d 616, 621-624 [2009]).

The motion court also properly dismissed plaintiffs second and fourth causes of action, which allege that plaintiff violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Stat Ann § 56:8-1 *et seq.),*since the complaint fails to plead an ascertainable loss by plaintiff caused by the alleged unlawful conduct *(see Bosland v Warnock Dodge, Inc.,*197 NJ 543, 557, 964 A2d 741, 749 [2009]). Although the complaint alleges that defendant gained a financial benefit by misrepresenting plaintiffs work as its own, there is no claim that defendant suffered any loss such as a lost contract, or suffered some other direct loss. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenny Robinson, Also Known as Kenneth Lee Robinson, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered August 21, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon and dismissing those counts of the indictment. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The evidence of defendant’s guilt of the robbery and burglary charges was overwhelming. The People’s witness Colon, who had known defendant for seven or eight years prior to the incident, testified that at or about the time the incident occurred, he heard moaning coming from the victim’s apartment, and shortly thereafter saw defendant in the brightly lit hallway outside the victim’s apartment removing a pair of gloves (despite it then being mid-July) and putting some keys in his pocket. Colon knew that defendant did not live in the building. However, there was insufficient proof of physical injury to sustain the assault charge *(see, People v Reed,*83 AD2d 566).

The District Attorney concedes, and on our review of the *684record we agree, that the count charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree must be reversed and that count dismissed, since there was no evidence presented to show that at the time of the robbery and burglary, he possessed a weapon.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2118

HERBERT MCKINNEY; HUBERT MCKINNEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-160-5) Submitted: March 7, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore R. Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herbert and Hubert McKinney appeal the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendant. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKinney v. United States Dep’t of Labor , No. CA-95- 160-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019230EN.01002301.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket

(Case C-354/19)

(2019/C 230/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Novartis AG

Other party: Patent-och registreringsverket

Question referred

In view of the fundamental purpose which the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is intended to fulfil, namely that of stimulating pharmaceutical research in the European Union, does Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, (1) having regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, preclude an applicant who has previously been granted a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a product protected by a basic patent, in force in respect of the product per se, from being granted a supplementary protection certificate for a new use of the product in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the new use constitutes a new therapeutic indication which is specifically protected by a new basic patent?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).

---
# Official Journal L 204/31 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 204 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5131 July 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 204

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5131 July 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### In the Matter of Kieverett Garner, Appellant, v Judith Garner, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 268]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 1, 2009, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, in effect, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation dated November 18, 2004, awarding custody of the subject child to the mother and visitation to the father, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child. By decision and order of this Court dated October 4, 2011, the matter was remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to those proceedings conducted in this matter on July 29, 2009, which could not be transcribed, and thereafter to report to this Court with all convenient speed, and the appeal was held in abeyance *{Matter of Garner v Garner,*88 AD3d 708 [2011]). The Family Court has now submitted its report.

Ordered that the order dated December 1, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to counsel at the custody hearing is without merit. After five days of the seven-day hearing, the Family Court granted the application by the appellant’s counsel to be relieved. Subsequently, the appellant appeared before the Family Court and was afforded an opportunity to apply for assigned counsel, but he refused to answer questions regarding his financial status. The Family Court adjourned the matter for four months so that the appellant could seek new counsel. The appellant failed to do so. On the next day of the hearing, the appellant disclosed his financial information, but his request for assigned counsel was *762denied. The appellant indicated that he was not willing to retain an attorney, and he proceeded pro se for the final two days of the hearing. Since the appellant did not qualify for assigned counsel, and was unwilling to retain counsel, the Family Court properly declined to grant a further adjournment *(see Matter of Fuentes v*Fuentes, 5 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; *Matter of Nilda S. v Dawn K.,*302 AD2d 237, 238 [2003]; *Matter of Iadicicco v Iadicicco,*270 AD2d 721, 722-723 [2000]; *Matter of Tavolacci v Garges,*124 AD2d 734, 736-737 [1986]). Dillon, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          88,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,325,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,476,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,096,000
<PP&E>                                         830,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (142,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,960,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,160,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,761,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,960,000
<SALES>                                      6,616,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,419,000
<CGS>                                      (4,677,000)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,004,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (416,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (198,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (734,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    70,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (664,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (664,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)

        

</TABLE>