alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021463EN.01001101.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/11

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/10)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry
  of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2021)7882 | 9 November 2021 | 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated
  (4-tert-OPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Alle, 2880 Bagsværd, Denmark | REACH/21/11/0 | As a solvent/detergent agent for virus inactivation in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products used in the treatment of rare bleeding disorders | 4 January 2033 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry

of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2021)7882

9 November 2021

4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated

(4-tert-OPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Alle, 2880 Bagsværd, Denmark

REACH/21/11/0

As a solvent/detergent agent for virus inactivation in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products used in the treatment of rare bleeding disorders

4 January 2033

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu)

---
#### Steel Los III, LP, et al., Respondents, v Power Authority of State of New York, Appellant.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

*999Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jihad Haddad, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered September 10, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) to set aside the verdict.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

No error was committed in admitting into evidence tape recordings of conversations among the undercover officer, the informant and the defendant, where the tapes were sufficiently audible and distinct so that the jury need not have speculated as to the contents thereof, and the officer testified that the conversations were accurately and fairly reproduced *(see, People v Ely,*68 NY2d 520; *People v McGee,*49 NY2d 48, *cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York,*446 US 942; *People v Beasley,*98 AD2d 946, *affd*62 NY2d 767; *People v Bazelais,*98 AD2d 802).

Nor was it error to summarily deny the defendant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The evidence offered in support of that motion was hearsay, and at best would have served only to impeach or contradict evidence adduced at trial *125
      *(see, People v Salemi,*309 NY 208, *cert denied*350 US 950; *People v Williams,*35 AD2d 1023).

Finally, while the defense counsel may have engaged in certain trial strategies which in hindsight may not have been wise, the record in this case, viewed in its totality, reveals that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *see also, People v Smith,*59 NY2d 156).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in charging the jury regarding the evaluation of character evidence has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and is, in any event, without merit *(see, People v Aharonowicz,*133 AD2d 117 [decided herewith]).

,We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# CI2021333EN.01001001.xml

| 19.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 333/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 333/10

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2021/C 333 I/03)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 412,

in the explanatory note to

  9503 00 70

  , the third paragraph is deleted and replaced by the following:

‘A single (“main”) article combined with:

| a) | one or more accessories designed to be used with the “main” article, or |
| --- | --- |

a)

one or more accessories designed to be used with the “main” article, or

| b) | minor/negligible article(s) (see also, mutatis mutandis, Guidelines on the classification in the Combined Nomenclature of goods put up in sets for retail sale, PART B (III) (3)), |
| --- | --- |

b)

minor/negligible article(s) (see also, mutatis mutandis, Guidelines on the classification in the Combined Nomenclature of goods put up in sets for retail sale, PART B (III) (3)),

does not constitute a ‘set’ and the combination is classified under the CN code corresponding to the “main” article.

“Accessories” for the purpose of this subheading are considered to be articles which are designed to be used with the “main article” but are not equivalent to that article in terms of size, design or complexity (for example, they do not contain movable or articulated parts or mechanical elements). There is generally a recognisable interaction between the two.

Examples of such accessories would be: clothing, shoes, hats, bags and toiletries for dolls (see also the HSEN to heading 9503, (C) Dolls), artificial food for the toys (for example, a plastic carrot or hay for a toy animal), brushes and saddles for toy animals, etc.

Examples of ‘sets’ falling under CN code 9503 00 70:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

Image 6

An example of ‘set’ consisting of several “accessories” of a different type falling under CN code 9503 00 70:

Image 7

Examples of “main” articles combined with accessories or a minor/negligible article which are not considered ‘sets’ under CN code 9503 00 70:

Image 8

Image 9 ’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

(3)  OJ C 105, 11.4.2013, p. 1.

---
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10650 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. S ID N E YL E U D E O C A IC E D O , al so kn ow n as A ron B orrer o D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 98- C R
- 206- 2
B ef ore G A R Z A , D eM O S S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S i dn ey L eu deo C ai cedo, federalp riso n er # 7933 1- 079 , w as convi ct ed of c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t t o d is tr ib u te a n dd is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on o f

21 U
. S. C
. § 846. H e ap p eal s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof hi s 18 U
. S
. C
. § 358 2(c) ( 2) m ot i on , w h i ch s eeks a tw o- l evelsentenci n g redu ct i on based on t h e ret roact ive A m en dm en t706 t o t h e cr ack c ocai n e gu i del i n es. Th e di st ri ct c o u r t d e n ie dth e m o tio n o n t h e g r o u n dt h a t C a ic e d o w a s h e lda c c o u n ta b le o n ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10650

2 f or pow der coc ai n e. W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a § 3582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B oe , 1 1 7 F .3d 8 3 0 , 8 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). Cai c e do r e ne w s h i s arg um e ntt hathe w as e nt i t l e d t o as e nt e nc i ng r educ t i on bas ed on t he r et r oac t ive c r ac k c oc ai ne am endm ent s; he as se r t s th at hi s ori gin a li n d i ctm en t an dthe off en se co n d u ct i n vo lve dcrac k coca i n e. Although t h e i n i t i ali n di ct m en tal l egedoff en ses i n volvi n g both pow der an d crack coc ai n e, C ai cedo pl ead ed gu il t y t o a sup ersedi n g i n di ct m en tt h at al l eged of fen ses i nvolvi ng onl y po w derc oc ai ne. The pr es ent enc e re por t( PS R ) al so i ndi c at es t hat C ai cedo’ s of

fen se l evelw as cal cul ated basedup on a qu an t i t y of coc ai n e, not c rack cocai n e. A s t h e di st ri ct court corr ect l y determ i n ed, becau se C ai cedo’ s gui del i n es ran ge w as not d erivedfr om a q u an t i t y of crack cocai n e, h e w as not “ sentenced to ate r m o f im p r is o n m e n t b a s e d o n a s e n te n c in g r a n g e th a t h a [d ] s u b s e q u e n tly b ee n l ow ere dbythe S e n te n ci n g C om m i ssion
. ” S ee§ 3 58 2(c ) ( 2)
. To t he e xt e nt C a ic e d o ch a ll e n g e s th e v a lid ityo f th e s u p e r s e d in gin d ic tm e n t, s u c h acla im is n o t co g n iz a b le in a§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n . S ee§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . S h a w, 3 0 F .3d 2 6 , 2 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). AF F I RMED.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-36184 of Patient InfoSystems, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 19,
2002  (March  28,  2002 as to Note 3) (which  report  expresses  an  unqualified
opinion  and  includes an  explanatory  paragraph  relating  to a going  concern
uncertainty),   appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Patient
InfoSystems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.




Deloitte & Touche LLP
Rochester, New York
April 8, 2002
#### Manhattanville College, Appellant, v James John Romeo Consulting Engineer, P.C., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted April 2, 2007;

decided April 26, 2007

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 8*NY3d 852].
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-50912,333-88313, 333-106325, 333-153740 and 333-153741 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the financial statements of Edgewater Technology, Inc., appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Edgewater Technology, Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2010. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 31, 2011
<PAGE>   1
 
                             SERVICE EXPERTS, INC.
 
                EXHIBIT 11 -- COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                              ------------------------------
                                                               1994        1995        1996
                                                              ------      ------      ------
                                                                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER
                                                                       SHARE DATA)
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>         <C>
PRIMARY
Average shares outstanding..................................   1,561       1,561       4,424
Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the treasury
  stock method using average market price...................      --          --          27
                                                              ------      ------      ------
     Totals.................................................   1,561       1,561       4,451
                                                              ======      ======      ======
Net income..................................................  $  383      $  708      $3,110
                                                              ======      ======      ======
Net income per common share.................................  $  .25      $  .45      $  .70
                                                              ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>
# C_2021034EN.01000301.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9893 — C&G/Fischer/Craftnote)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 34/03)

On 28 July 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9893. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9893. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Simon v. Simon.

Appeal from Hale Chancery Court.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. H. Smith.

S. W. John, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, for appellee.

*668Opinion by

Dowdell, J.

*667The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, Aaron Simon, against the appellant, Adelheid Simon, his wife, asking for a divorce, on the ground of voluntary abandonment. The respondent filed an answer, in which she admitted the voluntary abandonment, but set up adul*668tery on the part of the husband, and prayed that her answer be taken as a cross-bill and that she be granted a divorce. On motion of the complainant, the chancellor rendered a decree dismissing the original bill without prejudice. After the dismissal of the original bill and on the submission of the cross-bill upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor rendered a decree denying the relief prayed for. From this decree the cross complainant appeals and assigns the rendition thereof as error.

The decree is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ JON A. DELUCA            
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ CHARLES S. WIESENHART
JR.
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Diane L. Trigilio, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph R. Trigilio, Appellant-Respondent.

We have considered the remaining contentions of the parties and find them to be without merit. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Morton, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ACE*COMM 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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included 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 periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such
disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused
such disclosure
controls and procedures
to be designed under
our supervision, to
ensure that material
information relating to
the registrant,
including its
consolidated
subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others
within those entities,
particularly during the
period in which this
report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the
effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure
controls and procedures
and presented in this
report our conclusions
about the effectiveness
of the disclosure
controls and
procedures, 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
financial reporting
that occurred during
the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an
annual report) that has
materially affected, or
is reasonably likely 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
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant
deficiencies and
material weaknesses in
the design or operation
of internal control
over financial
reporting which are
reasonably likely to
adversely affect the
registrant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 a significant role
in the registrants
internal control over
financial reporting.
 September 28, 2007/s/ James GreenwellJames Greenwell,Principal Executive Officer
#### In re PROSPECT AVE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 30, 1896.)

Proceeding for the opening of Prospect Avenue in the town of Flatbush.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with 810 costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1045

REV. EARNEST LEE HOBLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (CA-01-54-3)

Submitted: June 23, 2003 Decided: July 10, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earnest Lee Hobley, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen,

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Earnest Lee Hobley appeals the district court’s orders

granting summary judgment to Defendant in his employment

discrimination action and denying reconsideration of that order.

We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Hobley v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., No. CA01-54-3 (W.D. Va. filed Nov. 22, 2002 and entered Nov. 25, 2002;

Mar. 12, 2003; Apr. 2, 2003). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2022320EN.01003101.xml

| 24.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/31

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 11 January 2021 concerning a draft decision in case COMP/AT.40413 Focus Home, AT.40414 Koch Media, AT.40420 Zenimax, AT.40422 Bandai Namco, AT.40424 Capcom – Valve

Rapporteur: Latvia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 320/14)

1.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) overall agrees with the draft decision and agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, based on the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

3.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---