alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01006901.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/69

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Napoletano v Parliament

(Case T-452/19)

(2019/C 295/90)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pasqualina Napoletano (Anzio, 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.

---
# Official Journal C 78I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 078I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 648 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 078I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 648 March 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 78 I/01 | COVID-19 outbreak
  (Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the persistence of the COVID-19 crisis concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations, the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation and the extension of certain periods referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 78 I/01

COVID-19 outbreak
  (Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the persistence of the COVID-19 crisis concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations, the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation and the extension of certain periods referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698)

(Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the persistence of the COVID-19 crisis concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations, the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation and the extension of certain periods referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 78 I/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 78 I/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

3

---

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

EN
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Francis P. Barton, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of UTStarcom, 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 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 maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: June 26, 2006                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/FRANCIS P. BARTONFrancis P. Barton Executive Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### HENRY KOPYTA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DUGAN BROTHERS, INC., RESPONDENT-PETITIONER, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

December 17, 1960.

*Mr. Edward E. Euebler*for the petitioner.

*Mr. John W. Taylor, Mr. Everiti Rhinehart*and *Mr. Rocco F. Senna*for the respondents.

Denied.
1The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4162

___________

Gerald L. Brumley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

City of Rockport; Officer Brandon * 

Thomason; David Thomason, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2007

Filed: May 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Brumley appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following careful de novo review, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. All pending

motions are denied. 

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2



Visual Networks, Inc.



Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

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



The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Visual Networks, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald E. Clarke                                                                
|Donald E. Clarke Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer March 14, 2005



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
Visual Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Visual Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



52
**Exhibit 10.35**

 

AMENDMENT 

TO

CAREMARK RX, INC. 1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN 

EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 

 

The Caremark Rx, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 

 

1. Amendment Regarding Transferability of Options. Section 6.10 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.10 in its entirety andsubstituting the following new Section 6.10 therefor: 

 

6.10 TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS. To the extent not prohibited by any statute, rule or regulation applicable to the Plan, the Options or the registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Common Stock to be issued uponexercise of the Options, the Committee may, in its discretion, authorize all or a portion of Options granted to a Participant to be on terms which permit transfer by such Participant to (i) Immediate Family Members, (ii) a trust or trustsfor the exclusive benefit of such Immediate Family Members, or (iii) a partnership in which such Immediate Family Members are the only partners, provided that (A) the Award Agreement pursuant to which such Options are granted must beapproved by the Committee, and must expressly provide for transferability in a manner consistent with this Section, and (B) subsequent transfers of transferred Options shall be prohibited except those by will or the laws of descent anddistribution. Following transfer, any such Options shall continue to be subject to the same terms and conditions as were applicable immediately prior to transfer, provided that for purposes of this Plan, the term “Participant” shall bedeemed to refer to the transferee. The events of termination of employment shall continue to be applied with respect to the original Participant, following which the Options shall be exercisable by the transferee only to the extent, and for theperiods specified in this Section 6.10. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should the Committee provide that Options granted be transferable, the Company by such actions incurs no obligation to notify o otherwise provide 

 

1 

notice to a transferee of early termination of the Option. In the event of a transfer, as set forthabove, the original Participant is and will remain subject to and responsible for any applicable withholding taxes upon the exercise of such Options. 

 

2. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment shall be November 15, 2000. 

 

3. Miscellaneous. 

 

(a) Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Plan. 

 

(b) Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in fullforce and effect. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment tothe Caremark Rx, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Option Plan to be executed as of the Effective Date. 

 

CAREMARK RX, INC.

Sara J. Finley, Corporate Secretary

 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.4

                                                                          PAGE 1

                                State of Delaware

                        Office of the Secretary of State

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

      I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF "SYNC RESEARCH, INC.", CHANGING ITS NAME FROM "SYNC RESEARCH, INC." TO
"ENTRADA NETWORKS, INC.", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF
AUGUST, A.D. 2000, AT 1 O'CLOCK P.M.

      A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE
COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.


                                        /s/ Edward J. Freel
                            [SEAL]      ----------------------------------------
                                        Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State

2541975  8100                           AUTHENTICATION: 0651057

001442121                               DATE: 08-31-00




<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                               SYNC RESEARCH, INC.

      The undersigned hereby certifies that:

      1. He is the duly elected and acting President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Sync Research, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

      2. The Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation was originally
filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on September 12, 1995.

      3. Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation amends Article I of this corporation's Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation to read in its entirety as follows:

            "The name of the corporation is Entrada Networks, Inc."

      4. The foregoing Certificate of Amendment has been duly adopted by this
corporation's Board of Directors and stockholders in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

      Executed at Irvine, California on August 31st, 2000.


                                        /s/ William K. Guerry
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William K. Guerry,  President, Chief
                                        Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                                        Officer
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 of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Patrick C. Barry,
Chief 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:

        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.


/s/ Patrick C. Barry
----------------------------
Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2007
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00742-CR

Andres Solis VIELMA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-09-12304-CR

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 

738 (1967). On July 22, 2014, appellant filed a motion requesting access to the appellate record. See 

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

Appellant’s motion to access the record is GRANTED. It is ORDERED the district clerk of 

Bexar County shall prepare and send a full and complete duplicate copy of the clerk’s record and the 

reporter’s record for cause number 2013-09-12304-CR to appellant at TDCJ No. 1964402, Garza 

West Unit, 4250 Highway 202, Beeville, TX 78102. It is FURTHER ORDERED the district clerk 

file written notice in this court no later than ten days from the date of this order confirming the date 

the record was sent to appellant.

It is further ORDERED the motion to withdraw, filed by appellants counsel, is HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

If, after reviewing the record, appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within 

thirty days from the date this court receives written notice that the record was sent to appellant by the 

district clerk. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5


<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary information extracted from the condensed
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 1997 and March 31, 1996 the 
condensed consolidated statements of income for the twelve months ended 
March 31, 1997 and March 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such. 

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                         <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            MAR-31-1997              MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1997              MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                           108,148                  490,791
<SECURITIES>                            0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                 25,923,091               18,326,784
<ALLOWANCES>                   4,392,034                3,074,860
<INVENTORY>                            0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0                        0
<PP&E>                           520,920                  438,767
<DEPRECIATION>                   338,580                  258,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                27,020,742               19,801,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         20,985,464               16,547,936
<BONDS>                                0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                        0
<PREFERRED>                            0                        0
<COMMON>                       3,713,210                1,724,051
<OTHER-SE>                     2,322,068                1,529,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  27,020,742               19,801,801
<SALES>                          459,719                  565,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               6,209,129                5,833,175  
<CGS>                             98,833                  140,786 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  2,640,427                2,276,449        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  85,427                  353,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 438,510                  486,440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,656,402                1,517,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                1,289,530                1,058,901
<INCOME-TAX>                     497,276                  396,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              792,254                  662,151
<DISCONTINUED>                         0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0                        0
<CHANGES>                              0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     792,254                  662,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        .12                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .12                      .11

<F1> [RECEIVABLES] ARE PRESENTED NET OF UNEARNED FINANCE CHARGES, NON-
      REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
<F2> [ALLOWANCES] ARE PRESENTED AS TOTAL RESERVES, COMPRISED OF NON-
      REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
        

</TABLE>
#### Rose Leung, Respondent, v Michael Bolton, Appellant, and Sandra A. Vitthuhn et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 905]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Michael Bolton appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated November 19, 2010, as denied his cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On June 27, 2009, the plaintiff allegedly was injured in a chain-reaction collision involving five motor vehicles on the Belt Parkway in Queens County. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was owned and operated by the defendant Michael Bolton. She commenced this action against the owners or operators of all of the vehicles. Bolton cross-moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied his cross motion.

Bolton failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because the evidence he submitted in *837support of his cross motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether he was negligent in the operation of his vehicle *(see Magloire v Sitner,*91 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, the conflicting deposition testimony submitted in support of the cross motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether, before the collision, Bolton failed to leave a reasonably safe distance between his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him *(see Napolitano v Galletta,*85 AD3d 881, 882 [2011]; *Malak v Wynder,*56 AJD3d 622, 623-624 [2008]). Accordingly, Bolton’s cross motion was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition *(see Magloire v Sitner,*91 AD3d at 919-920; *Checo v 452-53rd St. Realty Corp.,*78 AD3d 880, 881 [2010]; *Sarafolean v Accomplice N.Y.,*74 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2010]). Mastro, A.P.J, Balkin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- American Systems Corporation Under Contract No. N62583-08-D-O 136 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59176, 59177
Joseph G. Billings, Esq. Katherine B. Hill, Esq.

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Baltimore, MD Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Anthony K. Hicks, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to the request ofthe parties in appellant's "Stipulation ofDismissal with Prejudice," dated 12 July 2016, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated: 14 July 2016

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59176, 59177 Appeals ofAmerican Systems Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals