alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022095EN.01002301.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-189/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Humabio contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests)

(2022/C 95/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, O. Verheecke, T. Adamopoulos and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note No 3241615288 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 64 720,19 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Humabio is, in the amount of EUR 10 436,36, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---
Document Headings

                    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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary of Defense

Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held on February 6, 2001; February 13, 2001; February 20, 2001; and February 27, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in Room A105, The Nash Building, 1400 Key Boulevard, Rosslyn Virginia.

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-1269  Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
---

EXHIBIT 2.1.4.2





INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE ENTERPRISES, INC.








CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS, RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES


OF THE SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK








I, John M. Peck, CEO of INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”), pursuant to the provisions of Section 78.195 of the Nevada Revised Statutes of the State of Nevada, hereby makes this Certificate of Designations under the corporate seal of the Corporation and hereby states and certifies that pursuant to the authority expressly vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation by the Articles of Incorporation, the Board of Directors duly adopted the following resolutions:





RESOLVED, that there shall be a series of shares of the Corporation designated “Series B Preferred Stock” (the “Series B Preferred”); that the number of shares of such series shall be One Million (1,000,000) and that the rights and preferences of such Series B Preferred and the limitations or restrictions thereon, shall be as set forth herein;





The following shall be adopted and incorporated by reference into the foregoing resolutions as if fully set forth therein:





1. Number of Shares. The number of shares constituting the Series B Preferred is hereby fixed at One Million (1,000,000).





2. Dividends. The holders of the Series B Preferred shall not be entitled to receive any dividends.





3. Redemption.   Shares of Series B Preferred may be redeemed by the Corporation at any time after the holder’s termination of employment with the Corporation.





4.           No Circumvention. The Corporation shall not amend its certificate of incorporation, or participate in any reorganization, sale or transfer of assets, consolidation, merger, dissolution, issue or sale of securities or any other voluntary action for the purpose of avoiding or seeking to avoid the observance or performance of any of the terms to be observed or performed hereunder by the Corporation, but shall at all times in good faith use its best efforts, and assist in carrying out all such action as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate in order to protect the conversion rights of the holders of shares of Series B Preferred set forth herein.





5.           Voting. Except as otherwise required by law, holder of shares of Series A Preferred  shall, on an as-converted basis, vote together with the common stock as a single class on a one hundred votes per share basis. The holders of Series B Preferred shall be entitled to receive all notices relating to voting as are required to be given to the holders of the Common Stock.




1




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE ENTERPRISES, INC. has caused this certificate of designation to be signed by John Peck, its CEO on this 15th day of April, 2010.





INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE ENTERPRISES, INC.By:
/s/ John M. PeckJohn M. Peck, CEO
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2334** 

RAS

- SELAH: 7 TAFARI: EL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. GLASSER AND GLASSER PLC , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00532

- MSD

- FBS )

Submitted : April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Ras

- Sel ah: 7 Tafari: El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ras

- Selah: 7 Tafari: El appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. The district court interpreted the complaint as crimin al in nature and dismissed it. A private person may not initiate a criminal action in the federal courts. Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co. , 457 F.2d 81, 86

- 87 (2d Cir. 1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in Anglo

- American jurisdictions by private complaints.”). * To the extent that we can discern civil claims in the complaint, the claims fall within the realm of common law torts. Thus, a showing of jurisdiction premised on diversity of citizenshi p would be necessary for the district court to entertain the complaint. At base, diversity of citizenship requires parties to be citizens of different states or of a domestic state and a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2006).

* Ras

- Selah: 7 Tafari: El claims that at least part of his authority to prosecute stems from his status as a sovereign. Whatever the nature and jurisdiction of his sovereignty, it does not entitle him to initiate criminal prosecutions in United States courts.3 “The burden of proving jurisdictional facts rests upon the plaintiff.” Haynes v. James H. Carr, Inc. , 427 F.2d 700, 704 (4th Cir. 1970) . The complaint here not only failed to plead such diversity, but affirmatively pleaded facts undermining the existence of diversity in the ju risdictional sense. Finding no merit in the appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
# CE2012169EN.01023401.xml

| 15.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 169/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/234

---

Thursday 16 December 2010Participation of Switzerland in the ‘Youth in Action’ programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning ***

P7_TA(2010)0487

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the ‘Youth in Action’ programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007-2013)(12818/2010 – C7-0277/2010 – 2010/0231(NLE))

2012/C 169 E/46

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12818/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12818/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the ‘Youth in Action’ programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007-2013) (13104/2009), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the ‘Youth in Action’ programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning (2007-2013) (13104/2009),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 165(4) and 166(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0277/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 165(4) and 166(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0277/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Culture and Education (A7-0334/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Culture and Education (A7-0334/2010),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Swiss Confederation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Swiss Confederation.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

           CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of NS8 Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ricardo Rosado,
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  respect, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the  Company.

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

/s/  Ricardo  Rosado
--------------------
Chief  Financial  Officer
March  31,  2005


                                      E-84
<PAGE>
# S **upreme C**  **ourt of**  **T exas** 

══════════ No. 2 2

- 1 056

══════════ Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas , Petitioner ,
v . Fort Bend County , Respondent

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════
PER CURIAM This case concerns the division of power between the Governor and local officials during the response to the coronavirus pandem ic. Fort Bend County sought and received a temporary injunction against enforcement of a gubernatorial executive order that prohibited local mask

- wearing requirements. The court of appeals affirmed the temporary injunction, and the State petitioned for r eview. In light of our decision today in Abbott v. Harris County , 22

- 0124, the petition for review is granted, the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, the temporary injunction is dissolved, and the case is2 remanded for further proceedings consiste nt with our opinion in Abbott v. Harris County

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 59.1.
OPINION DELIVERED: June 30, 2023
# C_2022207EN.01002801.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-338/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of the participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and A. de La Cotardière, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision and a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---
`
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 Coyote Hills Golf, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month periods ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mitch Powers, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Stephanie Erickson, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Mitch Powers

     Mitch Powers

     Chief Executive Officer

     May 15, 2008

 

 

/s/ Stephanie Erickson

     Stephanie Erickson

     Chief Financial Officer

     May 15, 2008

 

 
`
**Exhibit 7.1**

**Quebecor Media Inc.**

**Statement RegardingCalculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges as Disclosed in**

**Quebecor Media Inc.’s Annual Report onForm 20-F for the Year Ended December 31, 2009**

For the purpose of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixedcharges disclosed in Quebecor Media Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, (i) earnings consist of net income (loss) plus non-controlling interest in subsidiary, income taxes, fixed charges, amortizedcapitalized interest, less interest capitalized and (ii) fixed charges consist of interest expensed and capitalized, plus amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses relating to indebtedness and an estimate of the interest withinrental expense.
Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP     Document 52      Filed 09/09/2008     Page 1 of 1
### *An official caption containin g a complete list of parties is

on file and available for insp ection in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. _____________________________ Nos. 95-2757/2758/2760/2761EM

_____________________________ Melvin Leroy Tyler, et al., * * Appellants, * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Mel Carnahan, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: February 27, 1996 Filed: March 6, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conditions-of-confinement action, sixtee n present and former inmates of the Farmington Correctional Center appeal th e district court's inte rlocutory rulings denying their motions for recusal, appointment of counsel, injunctive relief, and c onsolidation with Tyler v. Ash croft , No. 95-1341 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 1996) (unpublished per curiam) . We affirm.

We conclude the inmates' conclusory assertions of judicial bias , which we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus, do not establish a "clear and indisputable right" to recusal. See In re Larson , 43 F.3d 410, 412 (8th Cir. 1994); Liddell v. Board of Educ. , 677 F.2d 626, 643 (8t h Cir.), c ert. denied , 459 U.S. 877-78 (1982). We also find no abuse o f discretion in the district

### -2-

court's denial, witho ut prejudice, of the inmates' motion for appointment of counsel. See Edgi ngton v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections , 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; factors to consider); Slaughter v. City of Maplewood , 731 F.2d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1984). We furthe r conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denyin g injunctive relief bec ause the inmates--who alleged they were subjected to acts o f retaliation and general difficulty in communicating with othe r inmate plaintiffs through intra-prison mail--made no showing of irreparabl e harm, and the allegations were not related to the claims raised in th e complaint. See Goff v. Harper , 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995); Devose v. Herrin gton , 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Assuming the inmates ' challenge to the district court's order denying their motion to consolidat e this action with Tyler v. Ashcroft is properly b efore us, it is meritless. Finally, we grant the inmates' motion to expand the record and deny their motion to appoint an administrator for a deceased appellant. W e decline appellees' request to impose sanctions. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2018427EN.01006202.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/62

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories)

(Case T-712/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GN Laboratories - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, Arizona, United States of America)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 2358/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment Co. and C. Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Christos Ntolas to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Christos Ntolas to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---