alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019288EN.01006001.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/60

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Cocilovo v Parliament

(Case T-406/19)

(2019/C 288/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Cocilovo (Rome, 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.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 38391, July 20, 2021.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 21, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-15907 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# Official Journal L 428/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 428 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6430 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 428

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6430 November 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/2099 of 25 November 2021 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (EUAM RCA/1/2021) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2100 of 29 November 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 8774)

   (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/2099 of 25 November 2021 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (EUAM RCA/1/2021)

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2100 of 29 November 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 8774)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 8774)

1

3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| 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.
#### Edmond Fortin, Appellant, v Frederick J. Marra, Respondent.

— Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant, entered October 18, 1984 in Albany County, upon a verdict rendered at Trial Term (Conway, J.).

This is a dental malpractice case. On August 9, 1983, plaintiff was a patient of defendant who extracted his second lower left molar. During the course of that extraction, plaintiff aspirated a portion of a root tip. The jury determined that the aspiration of the root tip was not due to the negligence of defendant, giving rise to this appeal by plaintiff.

The essential facts are that during the extraction of the tooth, a portion broke off leaving a root tip imbedded in bone. In the process of extracting the root tip, the dentist dislodged the tip which fell into plaintiff’s mouth and was aspirated. During the entire procedure, plaintiff was in the chair reclining at a 45-degree angle. An instrument providing for continuous high-speed suction was in plaintiff’s mouth when the root tip dislodged and was aspirated.

The trial was primarily a contest of experts. Plaintiff’s expert, obtained through the Technical Advisory Service for Attorneys, testified that the procedures used by defendant in extracting plaintiff’s tooth were deficient primarily because he did not use an oral pharyngeal drape (a 2-inch by 2-inch gauze pad placed in the posterior portion of the mouth during the course of a dental procedure). He also suggested that the tooth should have been immobilized while it was being severed from the remaining gingival tissue.

Defendant’s expert was a specialist in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. He testified that the procedures used by defendant in the extraction were completely in accord with the proper standard of care. He stated that the pharyngeal drape was not proper when performing a closed extraction *787with local anesthesia and was capable of causing serious injury. He testified that the accepted standard procedure in this type of extraction was the use of a high-speed suction device as was used by defendant.

We conclude that the case was properly presented to a jury with clear instructions and, consequently, it was for the jury to resolve the conflicting expert testimony *(Foronda v Craven,*108 AD2d 956). When a plaintiff challenges an unfavorable verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence, " 'the motion should not be granted unless the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” *(Tannenbaum v Mandell,*51 AD2d 593; *Iv denied*39 NY2d 709, quoting *Pertofsky v Drucks,*16 AD2d 690; *see, Slocum v Solomon,*84 AD2d 946, *Iv denied*56 NY2d 503; *Fidler v Rowe,*54 AD2d 1013, *Iv denied*41 NY2d 802). In our view, there was sufficient evidence to entitle the jury to conclude that the accident did not result from negligence on the part of defendant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 38494)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Career Development for Clinicians/Health Professionals Study Section NIA-AGCD-3.                    

*Date:*                         October 13-14, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maurizio Grimaldi, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9374,                         *grimaldim2@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 15, 2021.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-15444 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 21-1826C

(Filed: September 14, 2021)

(NOT FOR PUBLICATION)

TY’ESHA S. HARRIS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE UNITED STATES,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff, Ty’esha S. Harris, filed a complaint against 

Defendant, the United States, in this Court. ECF No. 1. Having fully reviewed the 

allegations in her latest compliant, the Court finds that the instant complaint is

substantially identical to Ms. Harris’s previously filed complaint, which this Court 

dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Harris v. United States, No. 

21-1409, 2021 WL 2853165 (Fed. Cl. July 7, 2021). While the Court appreciates that 

Plaintiff included in this complaint more factual details (and attached additional

documents), the central premise of the complaint is the same as the one the Court 

already dismissed and suffers from all the same defects. As it would be unnecessary 

and duplicative to reconsider the allegations raised in Ms. Harris’s instant complaint

(besides for the claims being fantastical, if not patently frivolous, see Harris, 2021 WL 

2853165 at *3), the Court will not “permit yet another bite at the apple.” Colter v. United 

States, 2020 WL 1164802, *4 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 10, 2020). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint. The Clerk shall enter 

JUDGMENT for the government. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew H. Solomson 

Matthew H. Solomson

Judge
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jack Gregory, certify that:



(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended March 30, 2011;





(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(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 Registrant 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 Registrant, 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;





(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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





(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial 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 has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and





(5)

The Registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):





(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 Registrant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 Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: April 28, 2011 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL P.O.

4/15/2015 

### MONROE,BRANDONJAME This is to advise that the Court file the original application· for 

## $**@(Ot~,,..~ --~**  0002003152 APR16 2015

### ~~ MAILED FROM**7WR~S2,9'~fz-b**

### 1 ' ·written order motion for leave to

·

# ~ / "/BRANDON JAMES MONROE

,_ •

## 7 LYNN COUNTY JAIL 

# 'J • '**~_,** 

# , 810 LOCKWOOD

# S~RE~l' · ·

. \'-- ·"' TAHOKA, TX 79373 :.;;: · Abel Acosta, Clerk 

# n**~-.** 

# tl**~~~ u~,**  ·$---·**~** -'. ·-'1**~** -...::

.**~** "1**~**

. - . 

# r

7'3:37:3 l 

## II 11'/J "d I 

## .IJ 

# "I' ii·'I'IIIIJI!I''I' di ,1-llljJ• 

# ill't'l·l·l·l·lt]J •J' i 

## Ill' •
.. .· fl'llml'l ." I ""I"

. I 

### "f"l 

### rr•1•J 

## rrh•l)\ I' 

# l
Case: 1:02-cr-00177 Document #: 50 Filed: 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:91
Exhibit 13.2






PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
connection with this Annual Report of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited.
(the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Turid M. Sørenson, 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
      theSecurities
      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.
 
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
 
 
 Date:  May
8, 2009
 
 
 
 Turid M.
Sørenson
 Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Louis Prichard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kentucky Bancshares,
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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and
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 registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.
Date:   March 24, 2006
BY  /s/ Louis Prichard
Louis Prichard
President & Chief Executive Officer
92
94
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 52002XC0425(04)

**Commission notice concerning preferential agreements providing for diagonal cumulation of origin between the Community, Bulgaria, Switzerland (including Liechtenstein), the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and Turkey***Official Journal C 100 , 25/04/2002 P. 0005 - 0007*

Commission notice concerning preferential agreements providing for diagonal cumulation of origin between the Community, Bulgaria, Switzerland (including Liechtenstein), the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and Turkey

(2002/C 100/05)

Articles 3 and 4 of the protocols defining the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation to the preferential agreements concluded between the European Community and, respectively, Bulgaria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and between the European Coal and Steel Community and Turkey, and Article 3 of Protocol 4 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, provide for diagonal cumulation of origin between the countries concerned.

Under paragraph 4 of the provisions in question, the Community and the countries concerned notify each other, through the European Commission, of agreements and the associated origin rules in force with the other countries. The European Commission then publishes in the "C" series of the Official Journal of the European Communities the date on which the cumulation provided for in this Article may be applied by the countries meeting the requisite conditions.

The table below shows the situation with regard to agreements between the countries involved in such cumulation, based on the notifications received from the countries concerned, specifying the dates of entry into force of the associated origin protocols and amendments thereto.

THE SITUATION OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION OF DIAGONAL CUMULATION BETWEEN THE EC, CEFTA COUNTRIES, EFTA STATES, BALTIC STATES AND TURKEY

>TABLE>

LEGEND:

- No FTA concluded.

NPY Not published yet.

1. Introduction of the "Pan-European cumulation".

2. Incorporation of Turkey into the "Pan-European" group of countries - target date 1 January 1999.

3. Introduction of the euro and certain list rule changes - target date 1 January 2000.

00.00.0000 In cases where countries apply between themselves the amended provisions of the agreements or agreements as such from different dates, these dates are being indicated in bold. The provisions concerned can be applied in trade relations between these countries from the latter date.

NB:

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are members of the CEFTA (Central European Free Trade Agreement), whose agreement includes one origin protocol (number 7) applying diagonal cumulation of origin between these countries in the context of pan-European cumulation.