alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 219/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 219 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6421 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 219

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6421 June 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/994 of 18 June 2021 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/995 of 18 June 2021 determining the date on which Council Decision (EU) 2017/1908 on the putting into effect of certain provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Visa Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania shall start to apply | 37 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/994 of 18 June 2021 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  )

1

1

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/995 of 18 June 2021 determining the date on which Council Decision (EU) 2017/1908 on the putting into effect of certain provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Visa Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania shall start to apply

acquis

37

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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.
#### In the Matter of Ahmet Atabay, Appellant, v Ilkbal Cinar, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 224]

*833In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated September 15, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Livrieri, S.M.), dated June 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated September 15, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

When a parent seeks to modify the child support provision of a prior order or judgment, he or she must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]; *Matter of Malbin v Martz,*88 AD3d 715 [2011]). A parent seeking a downward modification based upon loss of employment must submit evidence demonstrating that the termination occurred through no fault of the parent and that the parent has diligently sought re-employment (see *Matter of Bruckstein v Bruckstein,*78 AD3d 695 [2010]).

Here, the father failed to establish that his loss of employment driving a hazardous materials truck was through no fault of his own *(id.),*or that he diligently sought re-employment *(cf. Matter ofMcAndrew v McAndrew,*84 AD3d 1381 [2011]). In addition, the father testified that he is prevented from seeking reemployment driving a truck because he suffers from sleep apnea, but he failed to provide any medical documentation to support this claim *(see Matter of Mofadal v Abdelhadi,*88 AD3d 886 [2011]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father was not entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Harry G. Mitchell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Echo Therapeutics, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 19, 2007   /s/ HARRY G. MITCHELL   Harry G. Mitchell  Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# Official Journal C 434A/4 De

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 434A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 574 December 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 434A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 574 December 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 434A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/134/14 — Assistants (AST 3) in the field of parliamentary work | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 434A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/134/14 — Assistants (AST 3) in the field of parliamentary work

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 434A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 11 |

2014/C 434A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

11

---

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

EN
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1161

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations

for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and

passed

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize

appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

4 REFUGEE AND ENTRANT ASSISTANCE.

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

6 414(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

7 1524(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1995, fiscal

8 year 1996, and fiscal year 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘each of

9 fiscal years 1998 and 1999’’.
2

•S 1161 CPS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 1997.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Gonzalez, Also Known as Domingo Vargas, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.), rendered March 8, 1982, convicting him of escape in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Brennan, J.), of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, indictment dismissed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

Defendant’s trial was held more than a year after his arraignment. On the eve of trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied his right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). Criminal Term summarily *736denied the motion, agreeing with the People that the motion was untimely.

Where a defendant is charged with a felony, the People must be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, less excludable periods (CPL 30.30 [1] [a]; [4]). Readiness for trial must be announced on the record or by written notice to the court and counsel to effectively toll the running of the statutory period *(see, People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337).

Initially we note that defendant’s motion was not untimely since it was brought prior to the commencement of trial (CPL 210.20 [2]). Moreover, no hearing is required on such a motion "unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” *(People v Gruden,*42 NY2d 214, 215). In the case at bar the People made no substantive oral or written response to defendant’s motion alleging that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial. Since more than a year had elapsed since the commencement of the action, it was incumbent upon the People to respond to the motion and indicate either that they had announced their readiness on the record within six months of its commencement, or, if not, that excludable time periods reduced the time chargeable to them to less than six months (CPL 30.30 [1] [a]; [4]). By failing to contest the allegations made by defendant in his motion, the People conceded that they were not ready for trial within the statutory period and the motion should have been summarily granted *(see, People v Gruden, supra,*at p 217). We find no proof in the record, nor any assertion in the People’s brief on appeal, that the People ever did, in fact, announce their readiness to try the case prior to the date of trial. The indictment must, therefore, be dismissed. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 10, 2014

h1203 

# Order

Clerk December 10, 2014

150043

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 150043

COA: 315157

Wayne CC: 12

- 000312

- FC,

JOSEPH LATEEF, 12

- 000313

- FC, 12

- 000314

- FC,

Defendant

- Appellee. 12

- 000315

- FC, 12

- 000318

- FC

, 12

- 002132

- FH

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the June 24, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Janelle M. Haverkamp DistrictJudge (940) 668-5401

Jan Brazelton Court Coordinator (940) 668-5401 

### 235TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COOKE COUNTY, TEXAS 101 South Dixon Cooke County Courthouse Gainesville, Texas 76240



### May 19, 2015

Abel Acosta Court of Criminal Appeals 

### P. O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 

# %2.|43S-D|

Court Reporter

— . 

# aSTCUa-SUSAHHOBHK

tirop Bailiff (940) 668-5453

Re: Deleon, Felix Trial Court Case Number-CR09-101A CCA Case Number- WR-82, 435-01
Dear Mr. Acosta: 

### Ihave been unable to complete my findings of fact and conclusions of law inthe above referenced case. Iam scheduled for surgery this week and will be out ofthe office for 4 to 6 weeks. 

### Irespectfully request an extension of time until July 15, 2015 to resolve the fact issues and file my findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Sincerely,



### ge Janelle W. Haverkamp 35 District Judge 

## RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### MAY 22 2015
Order entered February 17, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00455-CV

DANAE RUTH MCGANN, Appellant

V.

HANNAH J. LILLY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-04515-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 16, 2023 unopposed motion to 

extend time for filing her reply brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the 

brief be filed no later than March 20, 2023.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1

Eastern Division

Lawrence E Jaffe, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−05893

Honorable Jorge L. Alonso

Household International Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 18, 2016:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Pretrial conference held

and continued to 5/23/16 at 9:00 a.m. Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the

record, Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion to Exclude Defendants' Experts [2128] is granted in

part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' motion in limine to Permit Plaintiffs to Present

Evidence of the Fraud [2133] is granted. Plaintiffs' motion in limine to (1) Preclude

Defendants from Relitigating Falsity, Materiality, Scienter and Reliance; (2) Deem the

Findings from the Prior Proceedings Uncontested; and (3) Preclude Reference to

Dismissed Statements [2134] is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion

inlimine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence not Relevant to Causation or Inflation Plaintiffs'

motion in limine [2144] is granted in part and denied in part. Notice mailed by judge's

staff(ntf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 2190 Filed: 05/18/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:85742
[Cite as State ex rel. New Concept Hous., Inc. v. Metz, 123 Ohio St.3d 457, 2009-Ohio-5862.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . N EW C ONCEPT H OUSING , I NC ., ET AL ., A PPELLANTS , v. M ETZ , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. New Concept Hous., Inc. v. Metz, 123 Ohio St.3d 457, 2009-Ohio-5862.] Procedendo — Adequate remedy by way of appeal precludes writ. (No. 2009-0926 — Submitted Nove mber 4, 2009 — Decided November 10, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-080986.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment denying the petition of appellants, New Concept Housing, Inc., and George B. Stewart, for a writ of procedendo to compel appellee, a Hamilton County Cour t of Common Pleas judge, to issue a declaratory judgment concerning certain matters and to resolve all matters discussed in a prior appeal in the same case. {¶ 2} Appellants had an adequate remedy to raise their contentions by way of appeal from the common pleas court’s June 10, 2008 judgment that they challenge, and, in fact, they did so. See New Concept Hous., Inc. v. United Dept.
Stores , Hamilton App. No. C-080504, 2009-Ohio-2259. “[P]rocedendo is not appropriate when the party seeking the writ has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, e.g., appeal.” State ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis , 113 Ohio St.3d 410, 2007-Ohio-2205, 865 N.E.2d 1289, ¶ 43. {¶ 3} The trial court’s declaratory judgment was a final, appealable order because it affected the substantial rights of the parties, resolved the pertinent issues, and did not contem plate further action. Cf. id. at ¶ 45; see also Gen. Acc.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 540 N.E.2d 266, paragraph two of the syllabus (“A decl aratory judgment action is a special proceeding pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 and, therefore, an order entered therein which affects a substantial right is a final appealable order”). {¶ 4} Insofar as appellants argued that the common pleas court judge had failed to comply with a decision of the court of appeals in a prior appeal, that same appellate c ourt’s denial of their procedendo cl aim and affirmance of the trial court’s June 2008 declaratory judgme nt established otherwise. See State ex rel. Pyle v. Bessey , 112 Ohio St.3d 119, 2006-Ohio-6514, 858 N.E.2d 383, ¶ 12 (“The court of appeals was in the best pos ition to determine whether Judge Bessey
violated its mandate in Pyle I , and it concluded that he had not done so by affirming the judgment in Pyle II and dismissing Pyle’s writ action”). Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan, L.L.P., R obert R. Furnier, and Rasheed A. Simmonds; and Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., and John B. Nalbandian, for appellants. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Christian J. Schaeffer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

______________________
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Robert L. Miller, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscalfourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007       /s/ Robert L. Miller Robert L. Miller,    Chief Financial Officer