alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019255EN.01000901.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE

(Case C-55/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Daily and weekly rest - Article 6 - Maximum weekly working time - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Requirement to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured)

(2019/C 255/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendant: Deutsche Bank SAE

Interveners: Federación Estatal de Servicios de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FES-UGT), Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), Confederación Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (ELA), Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 4(1), Article 11(3) and Article 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State that, according to the interpretation given to it in national case-law, does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RAY M. BOURGEOIS AND MARY ANN I. BOURGEOIS,

Petitioners

v.

SNOW TIME, INC. AND SKI ROUNDTOP OPERATING CORPORATION,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 768 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25 th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the majority panel opinion conflict with existing law by failing to address the trial court’s disregard of Petitioners’ expert reports when granting summary judgment?

(2) Did the majority panel opinion conflict with existing law requiring it to review Petitioners’ expert reports in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party by,

inter alia , (a) improperly requiring Petitioners’ experts to establish the legal duty that Respondents breached, (b) dismissing their opinions as conclusory, and (c) overlooking numerous opinions throughout their reports which supported

Petitioners’ prima facie case against Respondents?

(3) Did the majority panel opinion conflict with existing law when it held that Petitioners did not establish the duties Respondents owed to Petitioners, when the duty of a snow tubing facility to protect its patrons from unreasonable ris ks of harm has already been established by the Supreme Court in Tayar v. Camelback [47 A.3d 1190 (Pa. 2012)]?[ 768 MAL 2018 ]

- 2

(4) Did the majority panel opinion conflict with existing law by requiring that a violation of industry standards be demonstrated for Petitioners to s ustain a recklessness or gross negligence cause of action against Respondents?
# C_2017357EN.01002101.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/21

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Grúas Roxu v Commission and SRB

(Case T-517/17)

(2017/C 357/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grúas Roxu, S.A. (Meres, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following measures:

| — | Decision (SRB/EES/2017/08) of the Single Resolution Board agreed at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision (SRB/EES/2017/08) of the Single Resolution Board agreed at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

| — | Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
[926 NE2d 591, 900 NYS2d 237]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Daivery Taylor et al., Respondents.

Argued January 5, 2010;

decided February 11, 2010

*728APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General,*New York City *(Monica Wagner, Barbara D. Underwood*and *Roseann MacKechnie*of counsel), for appellant.

*Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC,*Latham *(Peter J. Moschetti, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, the conviction of the Law Offices of Silver-man & Taylor of four counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree reinstated, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

Defendant Law Offices was convicted, following a nonjury trial in Nassau County Court, of four counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree under Penal Law § 175.35, a class E felony. The People’s theory of the case was that defendants, working with numerous others, engaged in a scheme to submit fraudulent claims to no-fault insurance carriers by having illegally solicited automobile accident victims exaggerate their injuries, receive excessive medical treatment, *729and file inflated claims. As relevant to this appeal,* defendant Law Offices allegedly filed retainer statements with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) containing false representations as to the source of client referrals.

In reversing the conviction against defendant Law Offices, the Appellate Division concluded that the element of “intent to defraud” as required by Penal Law § 175.35 was not established because OCA did not itself “check, verify, or rely upon th[e] information” contained in the retainer statements (55 AD3d 640, 642 [2d Dept 2008]). We disagree with the Appellate Division’s legal conclusion that Penal Law § 175.35 requires that the receiving agency take action in reliance upon the filing of such information and itself be misled to its detriment. The statute, by its plain terms, contains no such element. “Intent to defraud” refers only to a defendant’s state of mind in acting with a conscious aim and objective to defraud *(see*Penal Law § 15.05 [1]; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 175.30, at 79-80).

We therefore remit to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts under the proper legal analysis and, if necessary, of othér issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

*

 Defendants were additionally convicted by County Court of a scheme to defraud under Penal Law § 190.65 (1) (b), which was reversed by the Appellate Division; the People do not challenge this here. Nor do the People appeal the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the indictment against defendant Daivery Taylor.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13180]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT COMMISSION


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Northeast Dairy Compact Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting 
to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the 
price regulation. This meeting will be held in Wenham, Massachusetts, 
continuing the Commission's program of holding a meeting in each of the 
Compact states. In addition to receiving reports and recommendations of 
its standing Committees, the Commission will receive a number of 
informational reports about the impact of the over-order price 
regulation in Massachusetts.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Wenham Museum, 132 Main 
Street, Wenham, Massachusetts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Smith, Executive Director, 
Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 64 Main Street, Room 21, 
Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Daniel Smith,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-13180 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1650-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Carl Russo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Calix, Inc. for the quarter ended March 26, 2011;

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)) 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.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 28, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Carl Russo         
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Carl Russo             
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of A&J Venture Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger Zolg, in my capacities set forth below of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1) 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.   February 15, 2010 /s/ Roger Zolg Roger Zolg, CFO (as Principal Financial Officer)
#### Luis Ernesto RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74407.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 16, 2006.

Luis Ernesto Rodriguez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Ernesto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, *Parrilla v. Gonzales,*414 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.2005), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. *See Bellout v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2004). While we recognize that Rodriguez was subjected to intimidation during his trip to El Salvador in 1988, and also note his subsequent American military service, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA. *Id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2020068EN.01003802.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-369/18) (1)

(2020/C 68/42)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
Exhibit
99.2


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 Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Laural
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended November 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mandi
Luis, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.





Date:
January 8, 2010





MANDI
LUIS


Mandi
Luis


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director








-1-
# C_2019263EN.01001401.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-193/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ - Conveyance of signals - Web-based email service - Gmail service)

(2019/C 263/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Google LLC

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a web-based email service which does not itself provide internet access, such as the Gmail service provided by Google LLC, does not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks and therefore does not constitute an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Opnext, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
J. Nobile, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Registrant.



/s/ Robert J. NobileRobert J. NobileChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance


July 29, 2011
Exhibit 32(ii)


CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 report on Form 10-Q of Sonnen Corporation for the quarterly period endedMarch
 31, 2010,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Costas
 Takkas, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
 that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (3) | This report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (4) | The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 May 19, 2010



/s/
 Costas Takkas

Costas
 Takkas

Chief
 Financial Officer



This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
 as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective
 of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written statement required by
 §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
 Commission or its staff upon request.