alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020019EN.01003601.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Action brought on 21 November 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-849/19)

(2020/C 19/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, C. Hermes)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC (2) of 19 July 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC (2) of 19 July 2006;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation objectives within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

Also, the European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation measures within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

For those reasons, the Hellenic Republic has infringed Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

(2)  Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Strange, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Beverly Cohen, J.), rendered on March 7, 1984, under indictment No. 1419/83, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Asch, Kassal, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
# C_2022051EN.01002601.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — HC v Commission

(Case T-804/19) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/363/18 - Decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Language rules for the competition - Discrimination based on language - Liability)

(2022/C 51/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HC (represented by: G. Pandey, V. Villante and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, T. Lilamand and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for the annulment of, first, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 11 October 2018 organised for the purpose of drawing up two reserve lists from which the Commission is to recruit administrators (at grade AD 7) in the fields of customs and taxation, secondly, the decision of the selection board for that competition not to include the applicant’s name on the list of individuals invited to the assessment centre, thirdly, the decision of that selection board rejecting the applicant’s request for a review, fourthly, the Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 dismissing the applicant’s claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, fifthly, the list of candidates invited to the next stage of the competition, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket No.West Medway II, LLC
EG21-119-000BMP Wind LLC
EG21-120-000Kei Mass Energy Storage I, LLC
EG21-121-000Niyol Wind, LLC
EG21-122-000Clines Corners Wind Farm LLC
EG21-123-000Duran Mesa LLC
EG21-124-000Red Cloud Wind LLC
EG21-125-000Tecolote Wind LLC
EG21-126-000Samson Solar Energy III LLC
EG21-127-000Triple Butte LLC
EG21-128-000St-Felicien, Societe en commandite
EG21-129-000Irish Creek Wind, LLC
EG21-130-000Heartland Divide Wind II, LLC
EG21-131-000Little Blue Wind Project, LLC
EG21-132-000Sac County Wind, LLC
EG21-133-000Minco Wind Energy II, LLC
EG21-134-000SP Garland Solar Storage, LLC
EG21-135-000SP Tranquillity Solar Storage, LLC
EG21-136-000BLCP Power Limited
FC21-3-000Chaiyaphum Wind Farm Company Limited
FC21-4-000EGCO Cogeneration Company Limited
FC21-5-000G-Power Source Company Limited
FC21-6-000Gulf Power Generation Company Limited
FC21-7-000Gulf Yala Green Company Limited
FC21-8-000Nam Theun 2 Power Company Limited
FC21-9-000Natural Energy Development Company Limited
FC21-10-000Nong Khae Cogeneration Company Limited
FC21-11-000Paju Energy Services Company Limited
FC21-12-000PT Darajat Geothermal Indonesia
FC21-13-000Roi-Et Green Company Limited
FC21-14-000San Buenaventura Power Limited Company
FC21-15-000Solarco Company Limited
FC21-16-000Star Energy Geothermal Darajat I, Ltd
FC21-17-000Star Energy Geothermal Darajat II, Ltd
FC21-18-000Star Energy Geothermal Salak, Ltd
FC21-19-000Star Energy Geothermal Salak Pratama, Ltd
FC21-20-000Star Energy Geothermal (Wayang Windu) Ltd
FC21-21-000Theppana Wind Farm Company Limited
FC21-22-000Xayaburi Power Company Limited
FC21-23-000Convergent Canada Companies
FC21-24-000
 Take notice that during the month of June 2021, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2020). Dated: July 21, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2021-15925 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William A. Indelicato, Chief Executive 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/ William A. Indelicato
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        William A. Indelicato
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        May 24, 2004

                                     - 29 -
Exhibit 99.2

                                  BLUEFLY, INC.
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 2002


                            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 September 30, 2002, 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
November 13, 2002
Honorable James E. Barlow 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County 

San Antonio, Texas 

Dear Mr. Barlow: 

Opinion NO. c-586 

Rer After January 1, 1966, 

what statute will govern 

the appointment,, removal 

and compensation of 

grand jury bailiffs in 

Bexar County? 

You have requested the Attorney General's opinion 

concerning the statutes that will govern the appointment, 

removal and compensation of grand jury bailiffs in Bexar 

County after January 1, 1966. 

Your opinion request and the briefs submitted point 

out that there appear to be at present three statutes bearing upon the question presented. These statutes are Article 

lg.36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Acts, 1965, 59th 

m3., Ch. 722 - S.B. 107)~ Article 

Criminal Procedure; and Article 199 ? 37)(Q), 

67h, Vernon's Code of 

Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

The latter two statutes are still in effect by virtue 

of the provisions of Article 54.02, Section l(b) and Section 

2(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively, saving them 

from repeal. 

Both of the latter statutes are special legislatZon, 

and according to the general rules of statutory construction, 

would govern over the provisions of Article lg.36 of the new 

Code of Criminal Procedure in event of any conflict. Of the 

latter two statutes, Article 199 37)(Q) applies specifically 

to Bexar County, while Article 3 L 7h has a broader application, 

i.e., to counties with a population of 25O,OOO or more inhabitants. Thus, according to the above rule of statutory 

construction, Article 199(37)(Q) would govern over the more 

general provisions of Article 367h. 

Therefore, according to Article 199(37)(Q), the Dlstrlct Judges of the 144th and 175th District Courts shall 

alternately appoint grand jury bailiffs not to exceed seven. 

-2828- 
Honorable James E. Barlow, Page 2 (C-586) 

Each Judge may appoint three of such bailiffs, and If needed, 

may jointly appoint the seventh such bailiff. Balllffs thus 

appointed are subject to removal at the will of the Judge or 

Judges so appointing them. 

This does not mean, however, that Article 36711 is without any force or effect. Since Article 199(37)(Q) provides 

only for a method of selection and removal of such bailiffs, 

Article 367h will control as to the method of fixing the compensation of such bailiffs, which compensation shall be fixed 

by the Commissioners Court of Bexar County together with an 

automobile allowance to be set by the Commlssloners Court, 

all in accordance with the provisions of such statute. 

SUMMARY 

Article 199(37)(Q), V.C.S., governs the 

appointment and removal of grand jury balliffs in Bexar County. Article 367h, V.C.C.P., 

governs the compensation of such grand jury 

bailiffs. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

*g 

Assistant'Attorney General 

GJP/dt 

APPROVED! 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Douglas W. Chllton 

Charles B. Swanner 

Thomas H. Routt 

APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY T. B. Wright 

-2829-
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 on Form 10-Q of Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company)
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mahendra Desai Principal 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:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(3) | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and                                                                                                                                      
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|(4) | The information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
 financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated
 results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

|                      |                         | 
|--------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Dated: March 17, 2009 |                        
|                      |                         | 
|By:                   | /s/ Mahendra Desai      | 
|                      |                         | 
|                      | Mahendra Desai          | 
|                      | Chief Financial Officer | 

This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

27

---
Case: 1:03-cv-00990 Document #: 164 Filed: 05/04/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1352
Case: 1:03-cv-00990 Document #: 164 Filed: 05/04/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1353
Case: 1:03-cv-00990 Document #: 164 Filed: 05/04/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1354
#### In the Matter of Wayne Prospect et al., Petitioners, v Peter F. Cohalan, as County Executive of the County of Suffolk, Respondent, and the Long Island Lighting Company, Appellant. In the Matter of the Town of Southampton et al., Petitioners, v Peter F. Cohalan, as County Executive of the County of Suffolk, Respondent, and the Long Island Lighting Company, Appellant.

Appeal by the Long Island Lighting Company from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County *891(Doyle, J.), dated June 14, 1985, which denied its motion to intervene in the above-entitled proceedings.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion by the Long Island Lighting Company to intervene granted.

Since the Long Island Lighting Company is clearly an “interested” party in these proceedings, the motion to intervene should have been granted. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Case 10-00758 Doc 8 Filed 01/11/10 Entered 01/11/10 16:20:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 10-00758 Doc 8 Filed 01/11/10 Entered 01/11/10 16:20:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          18,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,355)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,295
<PP&E>                                          31,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,418)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,222
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,874
<SALES>                                         51,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,605
<CGS>                                           12,679
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,841)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,841)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delore Fuentes, Also Known as Vestor Gomez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered July 1, 1982, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree and possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On appeal, defendant raises several alleged errors which he claims deprived him of a fair trial, including the alleged admission of testimony regarding uncharged crimes and hearsay testimony. Most of these claimed errors were not objected to at trial, and therefore have not been preserved for appellate review *(People v Jones,*81 AD2d 22). One claimed error which was preserved occurred during complainant De Malleo’s testimony. Mr. De Malleo testified that he and his wife and child stayed with his mother for only a couple of days after the incident in question because his mother was threatened. The objection to that testimony was sustained and curative instructions were given immediately. Consequently, defendant was not prejudiced. In any event, Mr. De Malleo did not say that defendant *767was responsible for the threats; therefore he was not implicated in any uncharged crime. Similarly, the impeachment of the alibi witnesses on the basis of their prior illegal conduct did not implicate defendant in any uncharged crimes *{see, People v Hunter,*88 AD2d 321).

Statements which defendant claims constitute inadmissible hearsay were not hearsay. The statements were not admitted for their truth, but only for the fact that they were made. Thus, even had objections been raised at trial, they would have been properly overruled *(People v Davis, 58*NY2d 1102).

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under either the standard set forth by the Court of Appeals in *People v Baldi*(54 NY2d 137) or by the United States Supreme Court in *Strickland v Washington*(466 US 668). To the contrary, counsel thoroughly cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented two alibi witnesses, made appropriate objections, summed up to the jury in a competent fashion, and was able to convince the jury to acquit defendant of the attempted murder count. Accordingly, his performance was far from ineffective. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.