alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020054EN.01003502.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v TB

(Case C-871/19)

(2020/C 54/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze

Defendant: TB

Question referred

May Article 15 [(7) of Regulation No 3821/85] (1) be interpreted, in the specific case of the driver of the motor vehicle, as a rule which prescribes a single, overall form of conduct and, therefore, entails the commission of a single infringement and the imposition of a single penalty, or may it result, through the cumulation of penalties for each act of omission, in as many infringements and penalties as the number of days in relation to which the record sheets for the tachograph have not been produced in the context of the timeframe laid down (‘current day and the previous 28 days’)?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).

---
#### Armand Retamozzo, Appellant, v Jason Quinones et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[945 NYS2d 22]—

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 8, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motion to compel discovery, directed that plaintiff not use any kind of recording device during depositions, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery and for discovery sanctions, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as untimely.

Because the order appealed from is appealable as of right *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), plaintiff should have served and filed a notice of appeal instead of moving for leave to appeal. When the motion for leave to appeal was denied, in order to take advantage of the tolling provision provided in CPLR 5514 (a), plaintiff should have served and filed a notice of appeal within the time set forth in CPLR 5513 (a), computed from the date *653the motion for leave to appeal was denied. He did not and thus the appeal is untimely.

In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would affirm. Plaintiffs argument that defendants failed to include an affirmation of good faith in support of their motion to compel is belied by the record. Further, the IAS court’s order that plaintiff was not to have his own personal recording device during depositions was an appropriate exercise of the court’s power to regulate discovery *(see*CPLR 3103), especially given plaintiffs habit of tape recording conversations without notice to his interlocutor. Plaintiff was required to provide his mental health records, as he had affirmatively placed his mental and emotional state at issue *(Fox v Marshall,*91 AD3d 710, 711-712 [2012]). Because plaintiff had not yet produced any documents, but admitted to having responsive documents, the IAS court properly ordered him to produce the documents.

The IAS court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the interrogatory responses of defendants were adequate. The motion for sanctions was also properly denied, as there was no indication that defendants failed to respond to discovery, let alone that they wilfully refused to provide information *(see*CPLR 3126). Concur — Saxe, J.R, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
#### Micah RUDISILL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Center Yazoo City, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-60573

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Micah Rudisill, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Angela Givens Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 1998, Micah Rudisill, federal prisoner # 48233-019, was convicted by a jury of, inter alia, money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)®, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of § 1956(h). In 2008, Rudisill filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that his money laundering convictions should be invalidated in light of the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision in *United States v. Santos,*553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008). The *929district court dismissed the § 2241 petition concluding that Rudisill did not meet the requirements for proceeding under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as set forth in *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*248 F.3d 898, 904 (5th Cir.2001). In reviewing the denial of habeas relief, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues of law are reviewed de novo. *Jeffers v. Chandler,*253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).

In this case, the district court limited the application of *Santos*to cases of illegal gambling. The district court did not have the benefit of this court’s contrary reasoning in *Garland v. Roy,*615 F.3d 391, 402-04 (5th Cir.2010), when it reached this conclusion. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal of Rudisill’s § 2241 petition is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to determine whether, consistent with *Garland,*his claim falls within the savings clause of § 2255.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 37 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 430
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 37

     To disapprove a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
  Environmental Protection Agency relating to emission standards for 
                    certain steam generating units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2012

Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Mr. Johanns) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

                             June 19, 2012

  Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     To disapprove a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
  Environmental Protection Agency relating to emission standards for 
                    certain steam generating units.

Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating 
units and standards of performance for fossil-fuel-fired electric 
utility, industrial-commercial-institutional, and small industrial-
commercial-institutional steam generating units (77 Fed. Reg. 9304 
(February 16, 2012)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 430

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

     To disapprove a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
  Environmental Protection Agency relating to emission standards for 
                    certain steam generating units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 19, 2012

  Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed on the 
                                calendar
```
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Home Health Corporation of America, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our
report dated August 29, 1997, except for Note 13, for which the date is
September 26, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of the Company as of June 30, 1996 and 1997, and
for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 1997, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
October 28, 1997
#### Jeffery Dee GRAY ****,*Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-15635.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.**

Filed June 29, 2011.

Jeffrey Dee Gray, Tracy, CA, pro se.

Pamela Kay Critchfield, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The docket is hereby corrected to reflect the proper spelling of appellant's name, Jeffery Dee Gray.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*421MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Jeffery Dee Gray appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Gray essentially contends that his lawyer’s prediction that he would be paroled within six to ten years of his 1990 guilty plea was an enforceable part of his plea agreement that was breached by the Board of Prison Terms’s (“Board”) denial of parole in 2001. He also contends that his plea agreement was either void or voidable on principles of state contract law, in light of the state’s shift towards a practice of granting parole in murder cases only rarely. Gray did not seek a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because, at the time of his notice of appeal, it was not yet established as a matter of circuit law that a COA was required in cases challenging the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc), *overruled, in other respects by Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).

In order for a COA to issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), it must be the case that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.... ” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Given the terms of Gray’s unambiguous oral plea agreement, the state court’s decision rejecting his claims was neither contrary to nor an objectively unreasonable application of *Santobello v. New York,*404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). *See Brown v. Poole,*337 F.3d 1155, 1159-60 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing federal due process right to enforcement of oral plea agreement but noting that terms of an unambiguous oral agreement may not be contradicted by parol evidence). Moreover, Gray has pointed to no case supporting the proposition that his various arguments grounded in principles of state contract law give rise to a violation of federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-p.
Exhibit 32.1

NANOGEN, INC.

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

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Howard C. Birndorf, 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) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |                                                                      
|------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|May 12, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF                                               
|             |  |  |  | Howard C. Birndorf Chairman of the Board, and
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019288EN.01006601.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/66

---

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Global Brand Holdings v EUIPO (XOXO)

(Case T-503/19)

(2019/C 288/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Brand Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. de Marion de Glatigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark XOXO — Application for registration No 17 086 951

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 1413/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2I, Robert Devers, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Metalline Mining Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andhave: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us by others, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions containedin SEC Release 34-47986] (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors; (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.September 18, 2007   /s/ Robert Devers     Robert Devers, Chief Financial Officer
REPORT OF VOTE BY PROXY COMMITTEE
                              
                  CCB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                              
             1997 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

I. We, the undersigned, have been duly appointed, jointly
   and severally, to vote at the Annual Meeting of the
   Shareholders of CCB Financial Corporation the shares of
   common stock of CCB Financial Corporation standing in
   the name of the shareholders of record at the close of
   business on February 28, 1997 who have filed valid
   appointments of proxy with the Secretary.

II.We, the undersigned, have been duly authorized, jointly
   and severally, to vote the shares of common stock of CCB
   Financial Corporation evidenced by valid appointments of
   proxy filed with the Secretary representing 13,422,803
   shares of the total of 15,769,080 shares entitled to
   vote at such meeting, and we do hereby vote the total
   shares so presented as follows:

                           FOR       AGAINST    ABSTAIN
   Proposal No. 1:      9,465,324   1,996,787   114,855

                           FOR       AGAINST    ABSTAIN
   Proposal No. 2:      9,154,611   2,041,862   123,888

   Proposal No. 3 - Election of Directors:

            NOMINEE                  FOR        WITHHELD
       
       One-Year Term:
       John M. Barnhardt          13,360,785     62,017
       James B. Brame, Jr.        13,360,885     61,917
       W. L. Burns, Jr.           13,360,098     62,704
       David B. Jordan            13,357,474     65,328
       Eric B. Munson             13,354,518     68,284
       Miles J. Smith, Jr.        13,357,680     65,122
       Jimmy K. Stegall           13,359,937     62,865
       

   Proposal No. 3 - Election of Directors Continued

            NOMINEE                  FOR        WITHHELD
       
       Two-Year Term
       Timothy B. Burnett         13,360,874     61,928
       Owen G. Kenan              13,360,335     62,467
       Bonnie McElveen-Hunter     12,692,151    730,651
       George J. Morrow           12,718,199    704,603
       Ernest C. Roessler         13,360,785     62,017
       H. Allen Tate, Jr.         13,358,530     64,272
       Three-Year Term:
       J. Harper Beall, III       13,360,885     61,917
       Edward S. Holmes           13,353,237     69,565
       Eugene J. McDonald         13,358,075     64,727
       Hamilton W. McKay, Jr.     13,359,648     63,154
       James L. Williamson        13,360,783     62,019
       Phail Wynn, Jr.            13,355,661     67,141
       
                           FOR       AGAINST    ABSTAIN
   Proposal No. 4:      13,259,691    38,792    124,319


   WITNESS our signatures this 15th day of April, 1997.


/s/ LEO P. PYLYPEC
Leo P. Pylypec


/s/ W. HAROLD PARKER, JR.
W. Harold Parker, Jr.


/s/ MANUEL L. ROJAS
Manuel L. Rojas
# C_2019295EN.01007202.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/72

---

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Barbarella v Parliament

(Case T-459/19)

(2019/C 295/95)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carla Barbarella (Magione, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019263EN.01005601.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/56

---

Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Poggiolini v Parliament

(Case T-348/19)

(2019/C 263/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Danilo Poggiolini (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested note and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Note D (2019) 14435 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-347/19, Falqui v European Parliament.

---