alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Porter, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Heffron, J.—criminal trespass, second degree.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

NICO VINCENZO GALLO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1249

[ October 21, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CF000919A

.

Nico Vincenzo Gallo, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ERBER and A RT AU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Leon Behar et al., Appellants, v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc., Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 879]—

In an action for injunctive relief and to recover damages for nuisance and trespass, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered January 25, 2011, which denied that branch of their motion which was to preliminarily enjoin the use of the second hole of the defendant’s golf course, and (2) an order of the same court entered July 14, 2011, which denied their motion for leave to renew the motion for a preliminary injunction.

*809Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the preliminary injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were required to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a likelihood of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of the equities in their favor *(see*CPLR 6301; *Doe v Axelrod,*73 NY2d 748 [1988]; *Brack v Harmony Servs., Inc.,*93 AD3d 748 [2d Dept 2012]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that irreparable injury would result if the provisional relief at issue were withheld, and that a balancing of the equities weighed in their favor *(see*CPLR 6301; *Doe v Axelrod,*73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; *Berkoski v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Southampton,*67 AD3d 840, 844 [2009]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew. “A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” *(Marrero v Crystal Nails,*77 AD3d 798, 799 [2010]; *see Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert,*78 AD3d 985, 986 [2010]; CPLR 2221 [e]). Here, the new facts offered would not have changed the prior determination. Skelos, J.P, Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 284/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.284.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 284 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5628 September 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.284.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 284

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5628 September 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 284/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 274, 21.9.2013 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 284/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 274, 21.9.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 284/02 | Case C-410/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas lodged on 19 July 2013 — UAB ‘Baltlanta’ v Lietuvos valstybė, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania | 2 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 284/03 | Case T-365/13: Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission | 3 |
| 2013/C 284/04 | Case T-385/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Case F-4/12, Marcuccio v Commission | 4 |
| 2013/C 284/05 | Case T-399/13: Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People) | 4 |
| 2013/C 284/06 | Case T-405/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Le Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa) | 4 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 284/02

Case C-410/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas lodged on 19 July 2013 — UAB ‘Baltlanta’ v Lietuvos valstybė, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania

2

General Court

2013/C 284/03

Case T-365/13: Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

Republic of Lithuania

European Commission

3

2013/C 284/04

Case T-385/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Case F-4/12, Marcuccio v Commission

4

2013/C 284/05

Case T-399/13: Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)

4

2013/C 284/06

Case T-405/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Le Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)

4

---

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

EN
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-07757 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/28/02 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
# C_2020201EN.01000502.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 11 December 2019 — BX v Unitatea administrativ-teritorială D.

(Case C-909/19)

(2020/C 201/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Iași

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BX

Respondent: Unitatea administrativ-teritorială D.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the period of time during which a worker attends mandatory vocational training courses after completing his or her normal hours of work, at the premises of the training services provider, away from his or her place of work, and without performing any of his or her service duties, constitutes ‘working time’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the period of time during which a worker attends mandatory vocational training courses after completing his or her normal hours of work, at the premises of the training services provider, away from his or her place of work, and without performing any of his or her service duties, constitutes ‘working time’?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, are Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(2), Article 3, Article 5 and Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, while establishing the need for employees to undertake vocational training, does not oblige employers to observe workers’ rest periods in so far as concerns the time during which training courses are to be attended? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, are Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(2), Article 3, Article 5 and Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, while establishing the need for employees to undertake vocational training, does not oblige employers to observe workers’ rest periods in so far as concerns the time during which training courses are to be attended?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-17331 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors and the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, Registration StatementNo. 333-102138 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, and Registration Statement No. 333-163150 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan ofour report dated April 14, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Broadway Financial Corporation and subsidiaries, which report is included in Form 10-K for Broadway Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

April 19, 2011
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 of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melissa
Payner-Gregor, 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/ Melissa Payner-Gregor
-------------------------
Melissa Payner-Gregor
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, Jonathan M. Rothberg, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of CuraGen Corporation;



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.



Date: April 11, 2005



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.       
|Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.           
|Chief Executive Officer, President and
|Chairman of the Board
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Apiva Ventures Ltd., a British
 Columbia corporation (the Company), on Form 20-F for the fiscal
 year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Repor), I, Nicholas Alexander, Secretary
of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to  906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that to my knowledge:

(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.
 By:         _/s/ Nicholas Alexander

 Name:    Nicholas Alexander
 Title:      Secretary and Director
 Date:      July 12, 2007

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Apiva
Ventures Ltd. and will be retained by Apiva Ventures Ltd. and
furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# Official Journal C 365A/10 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 365A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6410 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 365A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6410 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 365 A/01 | Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL) Joint Undertaking – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) COM/2021/20067 | 1 |
| 2021/C 365 A/02 | European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) COM/2021/20068 | 9 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2021/C 365 A/01

Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL) Joint Undertaking – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) COM/2021/20067

1

2021/C 365 A/02

European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) COM/2021/20068

9

---

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

EN
#### BURROWS v. SARONY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 15, 1907.)

Action by Ernest M. Burrows agamst the Sarony Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### Lee Adam Fredette, Appellant, v Town of Southampton et al., Defendants, and Ernest Sbaschnik et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 760] —

In an action to recover damages for personal *940injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August 18, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ernest Sbaschnik and Christine A. Sbaschnik which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants Ernest Sbaschnik and Christine A. Sbaschnik (hereinafter the Sbaschnik defendants) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by their testimony that their home was located near the east side of the trail on which the subject motorcycle accident occurred, while the accident occurred on the west side, that they did not place concrete or other debris on the west side of the trail, and that they did not even enter the west side of the trail until after the accident.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Mere surmise, suspicion, speculation, and conjecture are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp., 70*AD3d 631 [2010]; *Gelesko v Levy,*37 AD3d 528 [2007]; *Massaro v Wellen Oil & Chem.,*304 AD2d 538 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Belen, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest Brown, Appellant, v John O’Keefe, as Superintendent of Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cerrito, J.), entered August 27, 1984 in St. Lawrence County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was incarcerated on an unrelated charge when the State Division of Parole scheduled a hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to revoke his parole (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [i]). The hearing was ultimately held on April 27, 1984 and probable cause was found. A final revocation hearing was scheduled for May 30, 1984, but was postponed a number of times until it was held on August 3,1984. At *that*hearing, petitioner pointed out that the hearing was being held nine days beyond the 90-day time limit set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (3) (f) (i). The hearing officer did not rule on this contention.

*489Before administrative review of the parole revocation decision was completed, petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding seeking to raise the timeliness issue. Special Term denied the application for a writ and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Board of Parole, on appeal, reversed the decision revoking petitioner’s parole on the ground that the hearing was untimely. Petitioner urges that this proceeding is not moot because this court has the power to order expungement of references to parole violation from his record *(see, People ex rel. Pignone v LeFevre,*102 AD2d 877). However, unlike the situation in *Pignone,*petitioner never sought to have his record expunged. Indeed, he does not even allege that he has made such a request to the Board of Parole. The only relief sought by petitioner in this proceeding was that the decision revoking parole be reversed because the hearing was untimely. Since that relief has been provided by the Board of Parole, this proceeding is moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### PPX Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Charly Music, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Wright, J.), entered on January 15,1985, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The application by plaintiffs-respondents to file an appendix is denied. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of StarTek, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned individuals, certifies, 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 Registrant.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 7, 2012 | /s/CHAD A. CARLSON                                          
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Chad A. Carlson                                             
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer                       
|                     |                                                             
|Date: August 7, 2012 | /s/ LISA A. WEAVER                                          
|                     | Lisa A. Weaver                                              
|                     | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer



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 the Corporation and
will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 261/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 261 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 622 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 261

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 622 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 261/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 261/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 261/02 | State aid — Lithuania — State aid SA.44725 (2019/C) (ex SA.44725 2016/PN) — ‘Public service obligation (PSO)’ for security of electricity supply: strategic reserve; and complaint on Lithuanian electricity PSOs — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 261/02

State aid — Lithuania — State aid SA.44725 (2019/C) (ex SA.44725 2016/PN) — ‘Public service obligation (PSO)’ for security of electricity supply: strategic reserve; and complaint on Lithuanian electricity PSOs — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

5

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp.(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the 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 to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending  June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  September 16, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------------