alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021088EN.01003101.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/31

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-734/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 88/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 22 August 2019 by which the President of the Parliament rejected the request to take an urgent initiative seeking to confirm the applicant’s immunity, made on 4 July 2019 on his behalf by Ms Riba i Giner, Member of the European Parliament, on the basis of Article 8 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application to intervene;

| 3. | Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its costs relating to its application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its costs relating to its application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
Order entered April 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00207-CV

WALTER O. AND TERREE L. PURICELLI, Appellants

V.

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-12790-E

ORDER

The Court has before it appellees’ April 18, 2013 motion to dismiss for failure to 

prosecute. The Court DENIES the motion. The Court has been informed by the Dallas County 

District Clerk that appellant has neither paid nor made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant does not provide documentation showing that he has done so within ten days, this case 

may be dismissed without further notice.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARK ANTONIO BURGOS, )

DOC #T72747, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D16-728

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed December 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Chet A. Tharpe, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, and 

Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as 

counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16395]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-26-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38--Spartanburg County, South Carolina; 
Authorization of Production Activity; Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. 
(Production and Kitting of Power Tools and Injection Molded Parts); 
Fort Mill, South Carolina

    On March 30, 2021, Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 38M, in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 17771-17772, April 6, 2021). On 
July 28, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: July 28, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16395 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Report**     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006(the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 3, 2006       /s/ Mary T. Minch     Name: Mary T. Minch    Title: Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary  THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,821
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,325
<PP&E>                                             138
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                       (233)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,697
<SALES>                                         27,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,889
<CGS>                                           19,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,101)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,101)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Richards, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this relatively brief, uncomplicated trial, the evidence of defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree was overwhelming. All of defendant’s claims of error, save one, are either without merit or unpreserved for review. As to the latter, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see, People v Creech,*60 NY2d 895). The record *1009demonstrates that defendant was not denied a fair trial *(see, CPL*470.15 [6] [a]), nor was he denied effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

While it was error for the court to permit Officer Du Val, over objection, to testify that he observed the victim make a pretrial identification of defendant *(see, People v Trowbridge,*305 NY 471; *People v Thomas,*91 AD2d 857), the error was harmless when measured against the applicable standard for review of nonconstitutional error *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242). There was clear and strong testimony identifying the defendant *(see, People v Mobley,*56 NY2d 584), and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the police officer’s bolstering testimony (see, *People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Joel Diaz, Respondent, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 107]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J), entered January 13, 2011, which granted the petition to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s request to amend his application for accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits, and remanded the matter with the direction that petitioner be allowed to amend his application to include a heart-related disability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]). At the time respondent Board of Trustees denied petitioner’s application for ADR benefits based on an orthopedic condition, a member of the Board was aware that petitioner had suffered a heart attack, was incapacitated, and might wish to amend his application to include a claim under the Heart Bill. Moreover, there is evidence in the record that petitioner’s heart condition predated his retirement, but was not diagnosed until after he retired *(see Matter of Mulheren v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, Art. II,*307 AD2d 129 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 515 [2003]).

*583We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Renwick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33506(U).]
#### Thelma K. Langer, Appellant, v Beatrice Krivitzky, Individually and as Executrix of Philip Krivitzky, Deceased, Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated November 30, 1983, which denied her motion to restore this matter to the Trial Calendar of that court or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to prosecute it in the Surrogate’s Court, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated June 28, 1984, which denied reargument.

Appeal from the order dated June 28, 1984 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

Order dated November 30, 1983 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff commenced this action against her sister, the defendant, to recover damages for fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence over their father, Philip Krivitzky, who died in 1976, and for concealment of assets in their deceased mother’s estate. When the father’s will had been submitted for probate, plaintiff herein filed objections which she ultimately withdrew in a settlement which included the signing by her of a release of those objections in favor of the defendant and others.

This action came on for trial before Justice Max E. Cooper on May 28 and 29, 1981, and he rendered a decision dated *655June 12, 1981, which determined the issues raised in defendant’s favor. Justice Cooper died shortly thereafter and no judgment has yet been entered on his decision.

By notice of motion dated September 27, 1983, plaintiff moved to restore the case to the Trial Calendar or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to prosecution in the Surrogate’s Court. Special Term denied the motion, by the order dated November 30, 1983, as a prior decision existed which denied the relief requested and plaintiff had not sought to redress the situation by resort to remedies available under the CPLR. Plaintiff’s motion for reargument was denied by an order dated June 28, 1984.

With respect to the order which denied plaintiff’s motion to restore this action to the Trial Calendar or to dismiss without prejudice, we find that such was proper as an outstanding decision existed with respect to the issues which plaintiff was seeking to relitigate. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
**DEAN
      HELLER**


**Secretary
      of State**


**204
      North Carson Street, Suite 1**


**Carson
      City, Nevada 89701-4299**


**(775)
      684 5708**


**Website:
      secretaryofstate.biz**





Certificate
      of Amendment


(PURSUANT
      TO NRS 78.385 and 78.390)








**Certificate
      of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation**


**For
      Nevada Profit Corporations**





**(Pursuant
      to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)**





1.
      Name
      of corporation: Metalline Mining Company.





2.
      The
      articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
      available):





No.
      5


GOVERNING
      BOARD





This
      Corporation shall be governed by at least three directors and not more than
      nine
      directors. The directors shall be elected at the annual meetings or any special
      meeting of the stockholders called for the purpose of electing directors, the
      holder of each share of stock of this corporation shall have one vote and a
      plurality of the votes cast at the election shall decide the persons to hold
      such directorships.





The
      Board
      of Directors during a term may decrease in number by the resignation or death
      of
      one or more members, but the maximum number of directors cannot be increased.
      The majority of the surviving directors, in the case of a vacancy by resignation
      or death, may appoint a person or persons to fill a vacancy or
      vacancies.





3.
      The
      vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling
      them
      to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion
      of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or
      series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation
      have voted in favor of the amendment is: 23,367,925.*





4.
      Effective date of filing (optional):
      ___________________________________


(must
      not
      be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)





5.
      Officer Signature (required): /s/ Merlin D. Bingham





*If
      any
      proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or
      other
      right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment
      must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise
      required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power
      of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations
      or
      restrictions on the voting power thereof.





**IMPORTANT:** Failure
      to include any of the above information and submit the proper fees may cause
      this filing to be rejected.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




NOTICE OF INABILITY TO OBTAIN CONSENT FROM ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material
fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein
not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the
registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection
with the registration statement.

On August 5, 2002, the Board of Directors of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company") and its
Audit Committee dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as the Company's
independent public accountants and engaged Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") to
serve as the Company's independent public accountants for the balance of fiscal
year 2002. For additional information, see the Company's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on August 9, 2002.

After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Andersen's
written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's
registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended:
(File Nos. 333-3321, 333-3323 and 333-47357) and the related prospectuses (the
"Registration Statements") of Andersen's audit report with respect to the
Company's consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the
three years in the period then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under
the Securities Act permits the Company to file this Annual Report on Form 10-K,
which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements, without a
written consent from Andersen. As a result, with respect to transactions in the
Company's securities pursuant to the Registration Statements that occur
subsequent to the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen will not have any liability under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact
contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or any omissions of a
material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to
assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.





                                       26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    78,707
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,856
<PP&E>                                         107,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,208
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,872
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.51
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SETION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of World Wireless Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David D. Singer, the President 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,
following due inquiry, that I believe 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 result of operations of the Company.








Dated:    September 13, 2002


WORLD WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.By:

/s/    DAVID D.
SINGERDavid D. Singer President





|
|