alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01005001.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/50

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Musoni v Parliament

(Case T-426/19)

(2019/C 295/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mirella Musoni (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.

---
Unassociated Document


     

    Amendment
No. 1 to the Authorization Agreement

     

    This
Amendment No. 1 to the Authorization Agreement, dated as of October 28, 2008
(the “Agreement”), is
dated as of December 23, 2009, by and among An Fengbin, a resident of PRC with
ID No. of ___, Wang Yu, a resident of PRC with ID No. of _____, Wang Jing, a
resident of PRC with ID No. of ___, and Wang Xin a resident of PRC with ID No.
of ____ (together with Wang Yu and Wang Jing, the “Minority
Shareholders”).

     

    RECITALS

     

    WHEREAS, Dalian Xingyuan
Marine Bunker Co., Ltd. (“Xingyuan”) is a domestic
company with exclusively domestic capital registered in the PRC and is mainly
engaged in the business of producing and selling marine bunker; and

     

    WHEREAS, An Fengbin indirectly
holds 72.25% of the equity in Xingyuan; and

     

    WHEREAS, Wang Yu, Wang Jing,
and Wang Xin hold 9%, 3%, and 3% of the equity in Xingyuan respectively;
and

     

    WHEREAS, Star Blessing
Enterprises Limited (“Star
Blessing”), a BVI company, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oriental Excel
Enterprises Limited is a BVI corporation ("Oriental") wholly-owned by Ms.
LAI WaiChi, a citizen of Hong Kong; Star Blessing owns 100% equity interest of
Goodwill Rich International Limited, a Hong Kong
company,  and

     

    WHEREAS, under the terms of
the Agreement, the Minority Shareholders authorize An Fengbin to exercise the
minority interests and shareholder’s rights on behalf of them.

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises of the parties and the terms and conditions
hereof, receipt and sufficiency is acknowledged by the parties hereto, the
parties hereby agree as follows:

     

    Section 1. Rights of Minority
shareholders of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in
its entirety as follows:

     

    “1.          Authorization of Minority
Interests.  The Minority Shareholders hereby agree to irrevocably
authorize An Fengbin to exercise their minority interests on behalf of them and
exercise all shareholders’ rights. Further, upon Mr. An Fengbin’s acquires 100%
of the equity interests in Oriental, the Minority Shareholders shall be entitled
to the right to acquire equity interests in Oriental in accordance with the
respective pro rata ownership according to their respective pro rata ownership
of Xingyuan.”

     

    In
witness hereof, the parties have executed Amendment No. 1 as of the date first
written above.

     

    
      	
              Party A: An
      Fengbin

            	
              Signature:
      /s/ An
      Fengin

            	 
      
	 	 	 
	
              Party B: Wang
      Yu

            	
              Signature: /s/ Wang
      Yu

            	 
      
	 	 	 
	
              Party C: Wang
      Jing

            	
              Signature:
      /s/ Wang
      Jing

            	 
      
	 	 	 
	
              Party D: Wang
      Xin

            	
              Signature:
      /s/ Wang
      Xin
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. for
the period ended September 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Linda L. Lowry, Regular Trustee
of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ LINDA L. LOWRY
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Linda L. Lowry *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 6, 2003
_______________________

* Linda L. Lowry functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTONIO PIERRE SHUFFORD, a/k/a Bushwick , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 7:18

- cr - 00017

- BR

- 1; 7:20

- cv - 00048

- BR )

Submitted : March 21, 2022 Decided: April 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER , KING, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Antonio Pierre Shufford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Pierre Shufford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court ’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deb atable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. W e have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shufford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shufford’s motion for a certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
D ISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Oluwashola P., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Appellant; Emma T., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 290]-

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2011, which dismissed the neglect petition against respondent mother, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the neglect petition granted, and the matter remanded for a dispositional hearing.

The caseworker testified that the child stated that the mother beat him with a cord on his back when he broke a toy. The child’s statements were corroborated by a letter written by the mother to her boyfriend in prison, which stated that she had “just” beaten the child as if it was “judgment day,” for breaking the toy *(see Matter of Christopher L.,*19 AD3d 597 [2005]). The mother’s statement that the letter was a “joke,” and her subsequent claim that it was an expression of her feelings, not her actions, is not credible in light of the fact that the letter was entirely consistent with the four-year-old child’s account of events. The fact that the caseworker did not see bruises on the child’s body a week later is not dispositive. Although deference should be accorded the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses, this Court may properly make a finding of neglect based upon the record *(see Matter of Chanyae S. [Rena W.],*82 AD 3d 1247 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Kathleen EE., Appellant, v Kevin FF., Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.,

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Coffey, Jr., J.), entered May 18, 1984, which dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that respondent is the father of a child born to petitioner.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a declaration that respondent was the father of her child. After a hearing, Family Court found that petitioner failed to establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed the petition. This appeal by petitioner ensued.

Petitioner testified in her own behalf and Family Court found that her testimony had a number of inconsistencies. Petitioner admitted that she was intoxicated on the night in question and that she was unable to recall any specific details of the alleged act of sexual intercourse. Respondent offered the testimony of witnesses which contradicted certain portions of petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner also introduced into evidence a human leucocyte antigen (HLA) test report which indicated a probability of 98.1% that respondent was the father of petitioner’s child. Because of the conflicting testimony, a question of credibility was presented which Family Court was in the best position to resolve. The HLA test report was simply another fact to be considered. Based on the entire record, we see no basis for disturbing Family Court’s finding *(see, Matter of Kimiecik v Jesse U.,*111 AD2d 976; *Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph VV.,*108 AD2d 1038). We note with regard to the HLA test report that only an HLA test was done. The test was not done in conjunction with red blood cell antigen, serum protein and red blood cell enzyme tests.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

David E. Hershberg, Chief Executive Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi, Chief Financial Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Globecomm Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2007 (the ‘‘Quarterly Report’’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Globecomm Systems Inc.

Date: November 9, 2007


By:


/s/ DAVID E. HERSHBERGDavid E. Hershberg
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive OfficerBy:


/s/ ANDREW C. MELFIAndrew C. Melfi
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer


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

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN JESUS BANDA

- HUERTA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73809

Agency No. A205

- 647

- 890

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Juan Jesus Banda

- Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73809

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th

Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Banda

- Huerta

failed to establis h that any harm his family experienced or that he fears in Mexico

was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by thef t or random violence by gang members bears no nexus

to a protected ground”). We do not address Banda

- Huerta’s contentions as to his

alleged membership in or the cognizability of the social group of his family

,

because the BIA did not rely on these bases i n denying relief. See Santiago

Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision

of the BIA, w e consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a

protected ground, Banda

- Huerta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Banda

- Huerta failed to show i t is more likely than not that he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See

R a mirez

- Munoz v. Lynch , 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael N. Murdock, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; 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/ MICHAEL N. MURDOCK                                              
|Michael N. Murdock Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Dated: August 4, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

            HEALTHDYNE INFORMATION ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                            ------------------------------------
                                              1997          1996          1995
                                              ----          ----          ----
<S>                                         <C>           <C>           <C>      
Net earnings (loss)                         $(6,166)      $  1,183      $ (9,983)
                                            =======       ========      ========

Weighted average number of common                                                 
shares outstanding                           20,336         17,481        15,653
                                            =======       ========      ========
Basic net earnings (loss) per
  common share                              $  (.30)      $    .07      $   (.64)
                                            =======       ========      ========

Shares used in diluted net earnings
(loss) per share calculation:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding                20,336         17,481        15,653
  Additional shares assumed
    outstanding from dilutive
    stock options used in diluted
    earnings (loss) per share
    calculation                                -- *          1,395          -- *
                                            -------       --------      --------
                                             20,336         18,876        15,653
                                            =======       ========      ========
Diluted net earnings (loss) per common
share                                       $  (.30)      $    .06      $   (.64)
                                            =======       ========      ========
</TABLE>

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

  *   Since stock options are antidilutive to the loss per common share
      calculations, stock options are not considered in such loss per share
      calculations in 1997 and 1995.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                               AHL SERVICES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                                     March 31,
                                                          -------------------------------
                                                               2002              2001
                                                          --------------     ------------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>
Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock:
   Loss from continuing operations                        $       (1,403)    $     (2,351)
                                                          ==============     ============
   Income (loss) from discontinued operations             $       (1,916)    $      1,017
                                                          ==============     ============
   Net loss                                               $       (3,319)    $     (1,334)
                                                          ==============     ============
Weighted average shares:
   Common shares                                                  15,247           15,386
   Common share equivalents applicable to
     potentially diluted stock options outstanding
                                                                      - (1)            - (1)
                                                          --------------     ------------
   Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding during the period              15,247           15,386
                                                          ==============     ============
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share:
   Loss from continuing operations                        $        (0.09)    $      (0.15)
                                                          ==============     ============
   Income (loss) from discontinued operations             $        (0.13)    $       0.06
                                                          ==============     ============
   Net loss                                               $        (0.22)    $      (0.09)
                                                          ==============     ============
</TABLE>

   (1)  Because of the loss from continuing operations, diluted earnings per
        share for the period does not include the incremental shares from the
        assumed conversion of stock options granted. The common share
        equivalents applicable to potentially dilutive stock options
        outstanding were zero and 95,000 for the three months ended March 31,
        2002 and 2001, respectively.