alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019187EN.01006501.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/65

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-51/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Fruit and vegetable sector - Aid to producer groups - Expenditure effected by Poland - Weaknesses in key controls - Checks on recognition plans and on recognition criteria - Checks on applications for aid - Economic consistency - Reasonableness of expenditure - Systemic weakness - Risk to EAGF - Flat rate corrections of 25 %)

(2019/C 187/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Straś, M. Pawlicka and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (initially represented by: K. Skelly and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (JO 2016, L 312, p. 26) concerning the flat rate corrections applied in respect of the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---
# C_2017195EN.01003201.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/32

---

Action brought on 3 April 2017 — GY v Commission

(Case T-203/17)

(2017/C 195/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GY (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that

| — | The decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 December 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 December 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre is annulled;

| — | The European Commission is ordered to pay a sum assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission is ordered to pay a sum assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

ex aequo et bono

| — | The European Commission is, in any event, ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission is, in any event, ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the obligation to state reasons insofar as it did not disclose to the applicant the marking criteria which it adopted in execution of the judgment of 20 July 2016, GY v Commission, F-123/15, EU:F:2016:160. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the obligation to state reasons insofar as it did not disclose to the applicant the marking criteria which it adopted in execution of the judgment of 20 July 2016, GY v Commission, F-123/15, EU:F:2016:160.

GY

Commission

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the competition notice insofar as it arbitrarily restricted its assessment of the applicant’s professional experience by, in connection with three questions, looking only at the duration of that experience. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the competition notice insofar as it arbitrarily restricted its assessment of the applicant’s professional experience by, in connection with three questions, looking only at the duration of that experience.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging numerous manifest errors of assessment committed by the selection board of the competition, which render its decision to grant the applicant only 17 points out of 56 (the threshold being 22 points) unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging numerous manifest errors of assessment committed by the selection board of the competition, which render its decision to grant the applicant only 17 points out of 56 (the threshold being 22 points) unlawful.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12855]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, 
RCRA, EPCRA and CERCLA

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on May 11, 2001, a 
Consent Decree in United States, et al., v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum 
LLC, Civil Action No. 01-40119 was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
    In the Complaint the United States seeks injunctive relief and 
against Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (hereinafter, ``MAP''), pursuant 
to section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) 
(1983), amended by, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) (Supp. 1991), the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, (``RCRA''), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9603(a) and the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right to Know Act (``EPCRA''), 42 U.S.C. 11004(a) for alleged 
violations at MAP's seven refineries located in Robinson, Illinois; 
Garyville, Louisiana; Texas City, Texas; Catlettsburg, Kentucky; 
Detroit, Michigan; Canton, Ohio; and St. Paul Park, Minnesota.
    Under the settlement, MAP will implement innovative pollution 
control technologies to greatly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides 
(``NO<INF>X</INF>'') and sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>'') from 
refinery process units and adopt facility-wide enhanced monitoring and 
fugitive emission control programs. In addition, MAP will pay a civil 
penalty of $3.8 million, and perform supplemental environmental 
projects totaling approximately $5.9 million. The States of Minnesota, 
Louisiana, and Ohio, and Wayne County, Michigan will join in this 
settlement as signatories to the Consent Decree.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States, et al., v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, D.J. Ref. 90-
5-2-1-07247.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, 1001 Main Street, Suite A, Dyer, Indiana 46311 and at 
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A 
copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check 
in the amount of $50.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable 
to the Consent Decree Library.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-12855 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
EXHIBIT 23.1







                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


           As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement of our report dated January 29, 2004
included in Photo Control Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003, and to all references to our firm included in this
registration statement.


                                          /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 17, 2004
# C_2019187EN.01006901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/69

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-225/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of partial invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 311/2016-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---
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

# AGENCY:

Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board has been scheduled as follows:

# DATES:

January 9, and 10, 2001 (800 am to 1600 pm).

# ADDRESSES:

The Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill BLVD, Washington, DC, 20340.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria J. Prescott, Executive Secretary, DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, Washington, DC 20340-1328 (202) 231-4930.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(l), title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. The Board will receive briefings on and discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director,  DIA, on related scientific and technical matters.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-1274  Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
ORIGINIL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0420 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GERALD COOPER SCHWEGEL, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

DEC 2 8 2021 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on October 4, 2021. Nothing further 

was filed, and on November 15, 2021, this Court ordered that Appellant prepare, file, and 

serve the opening brief no later than December 15, 2021. Nothing further has been filed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Gerald Cooper Schwegel 

and to all counsel of reco44.,

DATED this 2-"‘ —day of December, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

12/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0420
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stream Global Services, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Dennis Lacey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) and 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2010 |  | /s/ Dennis Lacey                                                                                 
|                      |  | Dennis Lacey                                                                                     
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2011 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the treatment 

under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for reference 

products) of certain products deemed to have a biologics license pursuant 

to section 7002 of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act 

of 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2019 

Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Mr. REED, Ms. SCHRIER, and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 

the treatment under section 351(k)(7) of such Act (relating to exclusivity for reference products) of certain products deemed to have a biologics license pursuant to section 7002 of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Access to 

5 Biosimilars Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2011 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS DEEMED 

2 LICENSED. 

3 Section 351(k)(7) of the Public Health Service Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 262(k)(7)) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) DEEMED LICENSES.— 

7 ‘‘(i) NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIVITY

8 THROUGH DEEMING.—An approved appli9 cation that is deemed to be a license for a 

10 biological product under this section pursu11 ant to section 7002(e)(4) of the Biologics 

12 Price Competition and Innovation Act of 

13 2009 shall not be treated as having been 

14 first licensed under subsection (a) for pur15 poses of subparagraphs (A) and (B). 

16 ‘‘(ii) APPLICABILITY OF

17 ANTIEVERGREENING PROVISIONS.—Sub18 paragraph (C) shall apply to any reference 

19 product, without regard to whether— 

20 ‘‘(I) such product was first li21 censed under subsection (a); or 

22 ‘‘(II) the approved application for 

23 such product was deemed to be a li24 cense for a biological product as de25 scribed in clause (i).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2019406EN.01002401.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-673/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)

(2019/C 406/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi, (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium), Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, Port autonome de Namur, Port autonome de Charleroi, Port autonome de Liège and Région wallonne to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, Port autonome de Namur, Port autonome de Charleroi, Port autonome de Liège and Région wallonne to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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
  (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.
 Date:
November 15, 2007
    
    /s/ Gail F. GoodmanGail F. GoodmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Gartech Electrical Contracting Corp., Respondent, v Coastal Electric Construction Corp., Appellant.

Submitted January 4, 2010;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion upon the ground that the *749two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law *(see*CPLR 5601 [a]).