alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019122EN.01002301.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/23

---

Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (LA PASSIATA)

(Case T-70/19)

(2019/C 122/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LA PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 in Case R 928/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Form S-3 (No.333-121562) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-12025, 333-68128, 333-83650, 333-106647, 333-117070, 333-117137,
333-128113 and 333-136575) of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated May 19, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.



Orange
County, California
May 20, 2008

---



QuickLinks
Brandt v. Pallito , 638

- 10

- 15 Wncv (Teachout, J., Oct. 27, 2017)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 638

- 10

- 15 Wncv

JEFFREY

- MICHAEL BRANDT

Plaintiff

v.

ANDREW PALLITO , Commissioner, Vermont

Department of Corrections, and

DAVID TURNER

, Facilities Executive

Defendant s

ENTRY

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. Brandt seeks reconsideration of the court’s September 1, 2017 summary judgment

decision. He objects that the court erred in accepting that the State ’s compelling governmental

interest in preventing sexual violence in its prisons is served by its policy of prohibiting the

introduction into those facilities of explicit photographs of pierced genitalia and nipples. He

argues that Holt v. Hobbs , 135 S.Ct. 853, 863 (2015) , requires more of the State than what the

summary judgment record included when the court decided this issue.

Mr. Brandt’s motion is denied. In Holt , the trial court expressly knew that the policy a t

issue, a s applied to the inmate

, did not advance the asserted governmental interest. It

nevertheless ruled in favor of the government out of pure deference. The Supreme Court ruled

that “unquestioning deference” is impermissible under RLUIPA. “ Prison officials are experts in

running p risons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison rules, and courts should

respect that expertise. But that respect does not justify the abdication of the responsibility,

conferred by Congress, to apply RLUIPA’s rigorous standard. ” Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 864.

Unlike in Holt

, summary judgment here did not depend on unquestioning deference. The

record included an affidavit asserting the governmental interest and need to further it by

restricting materials of a graphic sexual nature. That is not “h ard to swallow.” Id . It is

reasonable on its face and supported by the record.

Mr. Brandt also argues that the policy cannot further the asserted g overnmental interest

because the policy permits some depictions of nudity. The policy , he argues, must p rohibit all

depictions of nudity of any kind or it per se cannot serve the asserted governmental interest. He

provides no reasoning or legal support for this assertion and the court does not find it persuasive.2

Mr. Brandt’s motion to reconsider is denied.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of October 201 7

.

_____________________________ Mary Miles Teachout,

Superior Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.1



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the May 2, 2001 Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-60004) and the April 4, 2000
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-35450) of PacificHealth
Laboratories, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2002 included in the annual
report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000.




                                         LARSON, ALLEN, WEISHAIR & CO., LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 20, 2002
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 46 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rules submitted by the Department of the Treasury 

and the Internal Revenue Service relating to the reporting requirements 

for interest that relates to deposits maintained at United States offices 

of certain financial institutions and is paid to certain nonresident alien 

individuals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2012 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

DEMINT, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LEE, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rules submitted by 

the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service relating to the reporting requirements for 

interest that relates to deposits maintained at United 

States offices of certain financial institutions and is paid 

to certain nonresident alien individuals. 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 46 IS 

1 That the Congress disapproves the rules submitted by the 

2 Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue 

3 Service relating to the reporting requirements for interest 

4 that relates to deposits maintained at United States of5 fices of certain financial institutions and is paid to certain 

6 nonresident alien individuals (published at 77 Fed. Reg. 

7 23391 (April 19, 2012)), and that such rules shall have 

8 no force or effect. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019357EN.01003501.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/35

---

Action brought on 17 July 2019 – Staciwa v Commission

(Case T-511/19)

(2019/C 357/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Staciwa (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 7 November 2018 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 7 November 2018 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 17 April 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 December 2018 against the abovementioned decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 17 April 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 December 2018 against the abovementioned decision;

| — | compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered;

| — | compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered: |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered:

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, a plea of illegality with regard to the Paymaster Office’s note of 15 December 2017. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, a plea of illegality with regard to the Paymaster Office’s note of 15 December 2017.

| 2. | Second plea in law, a further plea of illegality with regard to Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, a further plea of illegality with regard to Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

---
# C_2019164EN.01001301.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 29 January 2019 — Orange Romania SA v Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal

(Case C-61/19)

(2019/C 164/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orange Romania SA

Defendant: Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, (1) what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as specific and informed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, (1) what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as specific and informed?

| 2. | For the purposes of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as freely given? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, what conditions must be fulfilled in order for an indication of wishes to be regarded as freely given?

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

---
EXHIBIT 32



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                               
|                   |  |     |  | Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                                   
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and                        
|                   |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board                                         
|                   |  |     |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)               
|                   |  |    
|Dated: May 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer                                           
|                   |  |     |  | David M. Wurzer                                               
|                   |  |     |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer             
|                   |  |     |  | and Treasurer                                                 
|                   |  |     |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**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 Annual Report of Young Innovations, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

 

|                       |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Alfred E. Brennan, Jr. |   |  
Alfred E. Brennan, Jr., Director and

Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.

 

 
Arthur L. Herbst, Jr., 

President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 12, 2008

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Young Innovations, Inc. and will be retained by Young Innovations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

 

 

  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Zigles, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Harris, J.), both rendered September 30, 1983, convicting him (1) under indictment Number 3261/82, of driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .10%, as a felony, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), upon a jury verdict; and (2) under indictment Number 3177/82, of sodomy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

There is ample evidence in the record to support the defendant’s conviction under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2). The result of his breathalyzer test, which was admitted into evidence, demonstrated that his blood alcohol content was well in excess of the statutory limit. The prosecution clearly demonstrated that the officer who administered the test was qualified to do so, and that the test was properly performed in accordance with existing regulations. It was also established that the chemicals used were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions. Accordingly, there was a sufficient basis for admitting the breathalyzer test result into evidence *(see, People v Gower,*42 NY2d 117; *People v Donaldson,*36 AD2d 37). The defendant failed to raise any doubts concerning the accuracy and reliability of the breathalyzer’s operation. Thus, we find that the evidence was sufficient in quality and *611quantity to justify the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116, 122).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:02-cv-05631 Document #: 47 Filed: 07/27/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:548
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven R. Cassidy, Also Known as Bobby Cassidy, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), rendered November 20, 1984, convicting him of perjury in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The jury’s verdict, which, *inter alia,*found defendant guilty of perjury in the first degree but acquitted him of insurance fraud in the first degree, was not repugnant in view of the elements of the crimes as charged *(see, People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1; *People v Burford,*105 AD2d 752). In any event, the defendant’s claim of a repugnant verdict was not preserved for appellate review as his counsel failed to raise an objection thereto prior to the discharge of the jury (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Alfaro,*66 NY2d 985; *People v Burford, supra).*

In addition, the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion by the sentencing Judge, and the facts of the case do not warrant our substituting our discretion therefor *(People v Hyde,*110 AD2d 716; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 97/28 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 97 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6028 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 97

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6028 March 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2017/C 97/01 | Common Military List of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2017/C 97/01

Common Military List of the European Union

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 10

Authorizing the remains of Frank W. Buckles, the last surviving United 
 States veteran of the First World War, to lie in honor in the rotunda 
                            of the Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2011

   Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Udall of 
Colorado, Mr. Begich, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown of Ohio, 
    Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Wyden, Ms. 
  Landrieu, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, and Mr. McCain) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the remains of Frank W. Buckles, the last surviving United 
 States veteran of the First World War, to lie in honor in the rotunda 
                            of the Capitol.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING VETERANS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR.

    (a) In General.--In recognition of the historic contributions of 
United States veterans who served in the First World War, the remains 
of Frank W. Buckles, the last surviving United States veteran of the 
First World War, shall be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of 
the Capitol from March 14, 2011, to March 15, 2011, so that the 
citizens of the United States may pay their last respects to those 
great Americans.
    (b) Implementation.--The Architect of the Capitol, under the 
direction and supervision of the President pro tempore of the Senate 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall take the 
necessary steps to implement subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```