alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017347EN.01004001.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/40

---

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Cartera de Inversiones Melca and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-509/17)

(2017/C 347/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cartera de Inversiones Melca, SL (Avilés, Spain), Servicios Inmobiliarios Avilés, SL (Avilés), Hotel Avilés, SA (Avilés), Arside Construcciones Mecánicas, SA (Carreño, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

| — | Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken 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 taken 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

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

---
# C_2019280EN.01003302.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach, VIII Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych — Poland) — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o.w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu, in the presence of: NJ.

(C-437/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/47)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2019305EN.01001701.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — WESTbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-210/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Single European Railway Area - Directive 2012/34/EU - Article 3 - Concept of ‘railway infrastructure’ - Annex II - Minimum access - Inclusion of the use of passenger platforms)

(2019/C 305/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schienen-Control Kommission

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WESTbahn Management GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Operative part of the judgment

Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that ‘passenger platforms’, referred to in Annex I to that directive, are an element of the railway infrastructure the use of which is part of the minimum access package, in accordance with point 1(c) of Annex II.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
## ***EXHIBIT 21.1***

## * *

# ***SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT***

# * *

| ** **                              | ** ** | **JURISDICTION OF** | ** ** | ** **    |
|-----------------------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|---------------|
| ** **                              | ** ** | **INCORPORATION/**  | ** ** | **% OF**      |
| **NAME**                                | ** ** | **ORGANIZATION**    | ** ** | **OWNERSHIP** |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics,  LLC                    |       | Delaware            |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| DJ Orthopedics  Capital Corporation     |       | Delaware            |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  de Mexico S.A. de C.V.  |       | Mexico              |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Ortho, Canada  Inc.                  |       | Canada              |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  UK Limited              |       | United Kingdom      |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  Deutschland GmbH        |       | Germany             |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  France S.A.S.           |       | France              |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  Development Corporation |       | Delaware            |       | 100%          |
|                                    |       |                |       |          |
| dj Orthopedics  Nordic ApS              |       | Denmark             |       | 100%          |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2134 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2134

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2019

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults 
                          Who Are Deaf-Blind.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helen Keller National Center 
Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER REAUTHORIZED.

    The first sentence of section 205(a) of the Helen Keller National 
Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1904(a)) is amended by striking ``1999 through 
2003'' and inserting ``2019 through 2023''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2316

___________________________

Glenda Sue Gardner, Individually and As Personal Representative of The Estate of

Jacob Gardner; David Gardner

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Frederick D. Franklin; Donald W. Kleine; Douglas County Attorney's Office,

Douglas County, Nebraska; Does 1-2

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

 ____________

 Submitted: February 24, 2023

Filed: March 9, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
David Gardner and Glenda Gardner--individually and as representative for the

estate of her son, Jacob--appeal the district court’s1 dismissal of their civil rights

action raising claims under federal and state law. Following a careful review, we

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. See Plymouth Cty.

v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2137 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2137

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 7-year 
        recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2019

   Mr. Thompson of California (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Posey) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 7-year 
        recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Motorsports Fairness and Permanency 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. 7-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES 
              MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 168(i)(15) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019288EN.01000801.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/8

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — AQ and Others (C-789/18) and ZQ (C-790/18) v Corte dei Conti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Inps-Gestione (C-789/18)

(Joined Cases C-789/18 and 790/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Civil service - Cumulation of emoluments from activities as employed or self-employed persons in the service of one or more State entities - National legislation providing for a ceiling to such cumulation - Purely internal situation - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AQ and Others (C-789/18) and ZQ (C-790/18)

Defendants: Corte dei Conti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Inps-Gestione C-789/18)

in the presence of: BR and Others (C-789/18)

Operative part of the order

The references for a preliminary ruling introduced by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Italy) by decisions of 7 November 2018 are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
#### Mayer *v.*Weiss, Appellant.

*Action on a foreign judgment*— Affidavit *of defense^*— Insufficiency.

In an action brought on a judgment recovered in Missouri, it appeared by the exemplification that the writ was returned duly served and the parties appeared for trial.

An affidavit of defense is insufficient which merely avers that the courts of Missouri lacked jurisdiction over the defendant: that legal service had not been obtained, and that he was not in the jurisdiction of Missouri on the date of service or the date of trial shown in the exemplification.

The constitutional requirements that full faith and credit be accorded to the judgment of a sister state cannot be set aside by the mere traverse of the service by the defendant.

Argued October 12, 1925.

Appeal No. 117, October T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, July T., 1924, No. 363, on verdict for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in the case of Louis Mayer v. Joseph Weiss.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Action on a foreign judgment. Before Walsh and Knowles, JJ.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient 'affidavit of defense.

The facts ia.re stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The Court made absolute the rule. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the order of the Court.

*Albert A. J. Cohan,*for appellant.

*D. Arthur Magaziner*and with him *Clinton O. Mayer.*for appellee.

*61December 14, 1925:

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Judgment for want of la sufficient affidavit of defense was entered in this suit, brought on an exemplification of a judgment recovered in Missouri. The affidavit of defense averred that the court in Missouri had no “jurisdiction over the defendant, in that no service had been legally obtained on said defendant which would cause him to appear at the trial.” A supplemental affidavit was filed, repeating that statement and ■adding that “he was not in St. Louis nor within the jurisdiction of Missouri” on the date of service shown in the exemplification or on the date of trial.

The exemplification shows “Summons Writ returned duly served......” It also shows that the trial of the case was twice continued and that at the time specified, the “parties appear ready for trial.......”

The constitutional requirements that full faith and credit be accorded such a judgment would amount to little if the facts so certified had to give way to a mere traverse of the service or of defendant’s presence at the trial because of absence from the state on the dates specified. Service may have been made at his residence in his absence (Rev. Stat. Mo. 1919, Chap. 12, art. 4, sec. 1186, p. 496) and in his absence he may have appeared by his authorized attorney at the trial; if not, why did he not so aver? If a party has a defence based on want of jurisdiction over the person and adequately avers it, he is of course entitled to ,a trial: Price v. Schaeffer, 161 Pa. 530.

Judgment affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 59 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 59 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 59 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 59 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 59 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
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 of Reliabrand, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period from ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.





/s/ Antal Markus

Antal Markus

CFO

Dated: November 17, 2011





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32
 
 Certification of Principal and Financial Executive 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 Quarterly Report of International Vineyard, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert DeMate, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to International Vineyard, Inc., and will be retained by International Vineyard, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/ Robert DeMateRobert DeMate

President, Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2010
# C_2020137EN.01004203.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/42

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — BP v Uniparts SARL

(Case C-668/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/60)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ronald Jackson, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted January 19, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, George E. Crapple,Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, the ManagingOwner of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-K of Global Macro Trust;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4. The Trust’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Trust and have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theTrust, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;

 

(c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Trust’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Trust’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

5. The Trust’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Trust’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Trust’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Trust’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| By:                         | /s/ George E. Crapple |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                        |                  |   |
|                        |                  |   |
| George E. Crapple           |
| Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
| March 30, 2006              |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GUY C. HAUGHWOUT, SR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 769 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.