alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017213EN.01003102.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/31

---

Action brought on 20 April 2017 — SE v Council

(Case T-231/17)

(2017/C 213/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare and annul,

| — | the decision of the Individual Entitlements Unit of 22 June 2016 refusing acknowledgement, concerning his granddaughter, of his dependent child; |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision of the Individual Entitlements Unit of 22 June 2016 refusing acknowledgement, concerning his granddaughter, of his dependent child;

| — | insofar as necessary, the express decision of 24 January 2017 rejecting the claim made on 19 September 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as necessary, the express decision of 24 January 2017 rejecting the claim made on 19 September 2016;

in so doing,

| — | declare that the applicant’s granddaughter is dependent upon him under the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with effect from 13 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicant’s granddaughter is dependent upon him under the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with effect from 13 June 2016;

| — | grant the applicant’s granddaughter the benefit of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) through the applicant with effect from 13 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant’s granddaughter the benefit of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) through the applicant with effect from 13 June 2016;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant 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 an error of law and errors of assessment and interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials committed by the Council by adopting the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and errors of assessment and interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials committed by the Council by adopting the contested decisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---
#### Kenneth Entler, Appellant, v Eric Koch et al., Defendants, and Boy Scouts of America, Respondent.

Submitted November 21, 2011;

decided January 10, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 1098.

Motion, insofar as it seeks reargument of appellant’s motion for leave to appeal from the June 2011 Appellate Division order, denied *[see*17 NY3d 898 (2011)]; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the November 2011 stipulation treated as a final judgment, denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Ron
Zwanziger, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Alere Inc.;

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.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |                                                              
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Ron Zwanziger                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Ron Zwanziger Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11

National Presto Industries, Inc.

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be exercised.

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER
SHARE DATA)

|                                                                 | Second Quarter |  | First Six Months
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- |  | ----------------
|
|Net Earnings (1)                                                 |                |  | $               
|                                                                 |                |  |                 
|                                                                
|Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)                   |                |  |                 
|                                                                
|Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive |                |  |                 
|                                                                 |                |  |                 
|                                                                
|Adjusted common and common equivalent                            |                | 
|shares for computation (3)                                       |                |  |                 
|                                                                 |                |  |                 
|                                                                
|Net earnings per share:                                          |                |  |                 
|Basic (1 divided by 2)                                           |                |  | $               
|                                                                 |                |  |                 
|Diluted (1 divided by 3)                                         |                |  | $               
|                                                                 |                |  |                 



---
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2451 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2451 EH

1 SECTION 1. ELIZABETH BUFFUM CHACE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 575 Dexter Street in Central 

4 Falls, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum 

10 Chace Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2451 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuffum Chace Post Office’’. tral Falls, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth al Service located at 575 Dexter Street in Cen-
USCA11 Case: 22-11421 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 1 of 2USCA11 Case: 22-11421 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.3****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name and reports, and the inclusion ofinformation derived from our reports, under the heading “Item 4: Description of the Business – OyuTolgoi Copper and Gold Project” and the use of and reference to our name in “Item 12: Interests ofExperts” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2005, dated March30, 2006, and in the
Section 409A Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements



 Exhibit 10.1 

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. 

Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements 

This Amendment amends each and every Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement made by Global Power Equipment Group Inc. (the “Company”) that is
outstanding as of July 27, 2010 (each an “RSU Agreement”). 
 Section 8(b) of each RSU Agreement, provides that the Company
may, in its sole and absolute discretion, make such modifications with respect to the issuance of stock under the agreement as the Company reasonably deems necessary to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
interpretative guidance thereunder. Pursuant to that authority, the Company hereby amends each RSU Agreement by adding, immediately after the original Section 2, a new Section 2A reading as follows: 

“2A. Payment Date. 

“(a) Except as provided in Section 2A(b), the Company will pay the RSU Shares underlying any RSUs that become vested in
accordance with Section 4 of this Award Agreement and any Dividend Equivalents with respect to those vested RSUs on the first to occur of: 

(i) the applicable Vesting Date for the RSUs provided in Section 4; 

(ii) the occurrence of a Change of Control that is also a “change in the ownership,” a “change in the effective
control,” or a “change in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets” of the Company within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code; or 

(iii) the Grantee’s “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code; 

“(b) If (i) the RSUs (and any related Dividend Equivalents) become payable as a result of the Grantee’s separation from
service (other than as a result of the Grantee’s death) and (ii) the Grantee is a “specified employee” at that time within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code (as determined pursuant to the Company’s policy for
identifying specified employees), the Company will pay the RSU Shares (and any related Dividend Equivalents) to the Grantee on the first business day that is at least six months after the date of the Grantee’s separation from service (or upon
the Grantee’s death if the Grantee dies before the end of that six-month period). 
 “(c) If there is any inconsistency
between this Section 2A and any other provision of this Award Agreement, the provisions of this Section 2A will control.” 

This Amendment is executed for the Company on this
27th day of July, 2010. 

 

			
	Global Power Equipment Group Inc.
		
	By	 	 /s/ Tracy Pagliara

		 	 Tracy Pagliara, General Counsel, Secretary

and Vice President of Business Development
#### STATE v. GOYENS

No. 461P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 486

Applications by defendant for writ of habeas corpus denied 30 December 1998. Application filed by defendant pro se for writ of habeas corpus denied 30 December 1998.
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY CX FUTURES EXCHANGE, L.P.

ActiveUS 169419073v.2

CX Futures Exchange, L.P

Rule Amendment Submission #2021-06

40.6 Certification

November 12, 2021

1. The text of the addendum to the CX Futures Exchange, L.P., Compliance Manual 

is appended as Confidential Attachment A, which is submitted under a Petition 

for Confidential Treatment. The proposed additions are underlined and appear in 

red.

2. The date of intended implementation of the proposed amendments is ten business 

days following the filing of this submission.

3. Attached, please find a certification that: (1) these amendments comply with the 

Commodity Exchange Act and the Commission’s regulations thereunder; and (2) 

concurrent with this submission, CX Futures Exchange, L.P. (“CX”) posted on its 

website a notice of this submission.

4. A concise explanation and analysis of the operation, purpose, and effect of the 

amended rules appear below.

5. There were no opposing views expressed regarding this amended rule.

6. Confidential treatment is requested.

CONCISE EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE OPERATION, PURPOSE, 

AND EFFECT OF THE CERTIFIED RULE AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH 

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, INCLUDING CORE PRINCIPLES 

AND THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

Pursuant to Commission Rule 40.6(a)(7)(vi), the following is a concise explanation and 

analysis of the operation, purpose, and effect of the supplemental policy. 

CX is adopting this amendment to the addendum to its Compliance Manual to include in 

its procedure for informing the Commission of changes to CX’s Key Personnel additional 

timely steps that CX staff will take to inform staff of changes in CX’s compliance 

personnel. 

This document is submitted with a Petition for Confidential Treatment.
-2-

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY CX FUTURES EXCHANGE, L.P.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5c OF THE COMMODITY 

EXCHANGE ACT, 7 U.S.C. §7A-2 AND COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION RULE 40.6, 17 C.F.R. §40.6

I hereby certify that: 

(1) the addendum to the Compliance Manual complies with the Commodity 

Exchange Act, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulations 

thereunder; and 

(2) concurrent with this submission, CX Futures Exchange, L.P. posted on its 

website a notice of pending certification of the above with the Commission.

By: Thomas Thompson 

Title: Chief Compliance Officer 

Date: November 12, 2021
#### Allen S. Gold, Respondent, v Rockville Centre Police Department et al., Defendants, and County of Suffolk et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 29, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2). CPLR 5602 (a) (2) applies only to proceedings, not to actions.
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of 11 Good Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period
ending September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, E. Jamie Schloss, interim Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.



|November
19, 2012 | /s/
    E. JAMIE SCHLOSS               
|----------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                  |                                        
|                  | E.
    JAMIE SCHLOSS                   
|                  | INTERIM
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Single Touch Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Macaluso, President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|   

|\s\ Anthony Macaluso
|--------------------

Anthony Macaluso President

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

|January 13, 2010
|----------------

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert C. Hinton, Jr., Appellant, v Harold Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided March 30, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic *[see*13 NY3d 934 (2010)].

Judge Pigott taking no part.
Exhibit
32.1




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 Titanium Asset Management Corp. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended;
  and




(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




Dated:
      August 13, 2010
              /s/ Robert BrooksRobert
      BrooksChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the 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 Quarterly Report
of Seven Arts Entertainment Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QA for the quarter ended
December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Candace Wernick, 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.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|Date:September 11, 2013
|                       
|
P3, iSl-N.fS

D-axvsv. ^avxsct Q^.sjsc'k-, 0~, [^

CX.

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

MAY 04 2015

AbeWcosla.Clerk

Q-Ae.i
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to incorporation by
reference in this Form S-8 Registration Statement of Scanner Technologies Corporation of
our report dated February 11, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Scanner Technologies Corporation, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Scanner
Technologies Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| | /s/ Lurie Besikof Lapidus & Company, LLP
| | ----------------------------------------

Minneapolis, MinnesotaNovember
8, 2005

---
Order entered September 11, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01296-CV 

AMY SELF, Appellant 

V. 

TINA KING AND ELIZABETH TUCKER, Appellees 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 001-1286-2010 

ORDER 

Appellant’s Amended Motion for Rehearing is DENIED. 

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

 JUSTICE
I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S N O . A P - 7 7 , 0 3 8

U S C A R N E L L P E T E T A N , J R . , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S O N R E H E A R I N G U P O N C O U R T ' S O W N M O T I O N

F R O M C A U S E N O . 2 0 1 2 - 2 3 3 1 - C 1 I N T H E 1 9 TH D I S T R I C T C O U R T M c L E N N A N C O U N T Y Per curiam . O R D E R Appellant was convicted of the capital murder of his wife, Kimberly P et et an . T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 19.03(a) (2). The jury reje cted, in a specia l issue, Appellant’s claim that he is intellectually disabled and so cate g orica lly ineligible f or the de ath pena lty . And the jury answe red the statutory specia l issues in such a manner that Appellant wa s sentenc ed to death. Appea l to this court was automatic. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 37.071, § 2(h). We aff irmed. Petetan v. State , ___ S.W .3d ___, 2017 WL 2839870 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017).Petetan– 2

Among the points of err or reje cted wer e three re l at i n g to Appellant’s claim that he is intellectually disabled. I n his t en t h claim, Appellant contende d that the jury ' s answe r to the intellectual disability specia l issue was ag ainst the g rea t weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. I n his eleve nth claim, Appellant contende d that he is ineligible for the death p en al t y d u e to intellectual disability

. And, in his twenty -seve nth c laim, A ppellant contende d he was e ntitled to a pre- trial deter

mination of his intellectual disability

. Specif i ca lly , Appellant asked this Court, in considering his claims, to rew ork the substantive standard for addre ssing claims of intellectual disability

. Whil e this case was pending on rehe aring , the United States Supreme Court decide d Moore

v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017). I n Moore , the Supreme Court held that this Co u rt ’s fa ilure to consider curr ent medical standards and reliance on Briseno failed to comply with the Eig hth Amendment an d S u p reme Court prec edents. The Court vacated the judgme nt of our Court, and

rema nded the c ase f

or fur ther proc eeding s not inconsistent with i ts opinion. We g rant rehe arin g i n t h i s case on our own motion so that the Court may consider Appellant’s tenth, eleve nth, and twenty -seve nth claims in light of Moore . We order the parties to file briefs on these three claims in this Court within 60 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time shall be obtained f rom this Court.

I T I S SO ORDERED THI S THE 18th DAY OF OCTOB ER, 2017. Do not publish