alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010266EN.01000101.xml

| 1.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 266/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 23.2.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 727/07 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Veneto |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Istituzione del «Fondo di rotazione per le agrienergie» |
| Legal basis | Legge regionale 12 dicembre 2003 n. 40 «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura» articolo 58 ter |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Interest subsidy |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 30 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 31.12.2010 |
| Economic sectors | Electricity, gas and water supply |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Giunta Regionale Regione Veneto |
| Palazzo Balbi |
| 3013 Venezia VE |
| ITALIA |

Date of adoption of the decision

23.2.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 727/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Veneto

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Istituzione del «Fondo di rotazione per le agrienergie»

Legal basis

Legge regionale 12 dicembre 2003 n. 40 «Nuove norme per gli interventi in agricoltura» articolo 58 ter

ter

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Interest subsidy

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 30 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2010

Economic sectors

Electricity, gas and water supply

Name and address of the granting authority

Giunta Regionale Regione Veneto

Palazzo Balbi

3013 Venezia VE

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
173 P.3d 1021

#### STATE of Arizona v. Ricky Lee SABIN.

No. CR-07-0182-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Oct. 30, 2007.

ORDERED: Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court = DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED: The Court of Appeals’ Opinion shall not be published, pursuant to Rule 111(g), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 29, 2016 D-58-16 

___________________________________

In the Matter of MADELINE

 SHEILA GALVIN, an Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL

STANDARDS,

Petitioner; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 ON MOTION

MADELINE SHEILA GALVIN,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 1319680)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: September 6, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany (Sarah A. Richards of counsel), for petitioner.

Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of

counsel), for respondent.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1974

and currently maintains an office for the practice of law in the

Town of Bethlehem, Albany County.

By decision and order entered September 22, 2011, this

Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period

of two years, but stayed the suspension upon certain conditions

(87 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]). Subsequently, petitioner moved to

vacate the stay of the suspension, alleging that respondent had

not fully complied with this Court's order. This Court
-2- D-58-16 

thereafter, by order entered December 10, 2015, denied the motion

to vacate, but nonetheless extended the stayed suspension for an

additional year upon certain conditions (134 AD3d 1297 [2015]). 

Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspension and

provides an affidavit attesting that she has fully complied with

the conditions of the stay. Petitioner does not oppose the

motion, which we now grant.

In doing so, we initially note that this Court's extension

of respondent's stayed suspension is not set to expire until

December 2016. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances

herein, we find no basis to treat respondent's motion as

premature. Respondent has provided satisfactory proof that she

fulfilled all required conditions for reinstatement, including

taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility

Exam. Significantly, petitioner does not oppose respondent's

motion and indicates that respondent is in compliance with this

Court's directives. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant

respondent's request for immediate termination of her stayed

suspension (see Matter of Paul, 120 AD3d 1462 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and the stayed

suspension imposed by this Court's order entered September 22,

2011, as extended by order entered December 10, 2015, is

terminated, effective immediately.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# C_2010147EN.01002201.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/22 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Progress Assicurazioni SpA

(Publication in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2010/C 147/08

| Insurance undertaking | PROGRESS ASSICURAZIONI SpA Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 90143 Palermo PA ITALIA | PROGRESS ASSICURAZIONI SpA | Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 | 90143 Palermo PA | ITALIA |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------------- | ------ |
| PROGRESS ASSICURAZIONI SpA | | | | | |
| Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 | | | | | |
| 90143 Palermo PA | | | | | |
| ITALIA | | | | | |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | Decree of the Minister for Economic Development No 18659 of 29 March 2010 — withdrawal of authorisation to carry out activities in all branches and compulsory liquidation within the meaning of Article 245 of Legislative Decree No 209/2005 | | | | |
| Competent authorities | Ministry of Economic Development Via Molise 2 00187 Roma RM ITALIA | Ministry of Economic Development | Via Molise 2 | 00187 Roma RM | ITALIA |
| Ministry of Economic Development | | | | | |
| Via Molise 2 | | | | | |
| 00187 Roma RM | | | | | |
| ITALIA | | | | | |
| Supervisory authority | ISVAP Via del Quirinale 21 00187 Roma RM ITALIA | ISVAP | Via del Quirinale 21 | 00187 Roma RM | ITALIA |
| ISVAP | | | | | |
| Via del Quirinale 21 | | | | | |
| 00187 Roma RM | | | | | |
| ITALIA | | | | | |
| Appointed liquidator | Prof. Avv. Andrea Gemma Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 90143 Palermo PA ITALIA Tel. +39 091286111 Fax +39 0916259351 | Prof. Avv. Andrea Gemma | Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 | 90143 Palermo PA | ITALIA |
| Prof. Avv. Andrea Gemma | | | | | |
| Piazza Alberico Gentili 3 | | | | | |
| 90143 Palermo PA | | | | | |
| ITALIA | | | | | |
| Tel. +39 091286111 | | | | | |
| Fax +39 0916259351 | | | | | |
| Applicable law | Article 245 of Legislative Decree No 209/2005 | | | | |

Under Decree of the Ministry of Economic Development No 18659 of 29 March 2010, the authorisation of Progress Assicurazioni SpA, with its head office in Piazza Alberico Gentili 3, 90143 Palermo PA, ITALIA, to carry out activities in all branches has been withdrawn within the meaning of Article 245 of Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, and compulsory liquidation laid down.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7562

NOAH ELISHA WATSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00684-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted: August 27, 2010 Decided: September 8, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noah Elisha Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Noah Elisha Watson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
|                                        |   | Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 |        |   | Six Months Ended June 30, 2013 |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|-------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Net Income                                  |   | $                                   | (493,098    | )      |                                | $      | (1,432,183 | ) |
| Average number of common shares outstanding |   |                                | 171,690,544 |   |                                |   | 165,358,337 |   |
| Contingency issuable shares                 |   |                                | 12,078,750  |   |                                |   | 18,863,750 |   |
| Adjusted average shares                     |   |                                | 183,769,294 |   |                                |   | 184,222,087 |   |
| Basic and fully diluted earnings per share  |   |                                | 0.00        |   |                                |   | 0.00 |   |
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Andrew McDaniels, Appellant, v Michael Corcoran, Superintendent, Cayuga Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 12, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that relator has been released from custody and, therefore, his liberty is no longer restrained to such a degree as to entitle him to the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus *(see People ex rel. Wilder v Markley,*26 NY2d 648 [1970]).
DAILY AGGREGATE RAINFALL INDEX SWAPS CONTRACT RULES (Tables 1, 2, 3)

Trading Days 

prior to Final 

Settlement

Per Contract 

Exchange Fee

7 or more $0.02

6 $0.03

5 $0.04

4 $0.05

3 $0.06

2 $0.08

1 $0.10

Strike Level 0.00" 0.01" to 0.24" 0.25" or more

0.00" 1.00 0.01 0.01

0.01" 0.01 1.00

0.25" or more 0.01 0.01

Subtract Strike 

Level from DARI

Strike is Above 

0.00" to 0.24"

0.25" to 0.49"

0.50" to 0.74"

0.75" to 0.99"

1.00" to 1.24"

1.25" to 1.49"

1.50" to 1.74"

1.75" to 1.99"

2.00" to 2.24"

2.25" to 2.49"

2.50" to 2.74"

2.75" to 2.99"

3.00" or more 0.07

NOTE: If after applying Table 2 and Table 3 all strikes with Open Interest have a

DARI Conversion Factor of 0.01, then the lowest Strike Level (in sequence 0.00, 0.01, 0.25, et al) 

with Open Interest shall have a DARI Conversion Factor of 1.00

and all other Strike Levels shall have a DARI Conversion Factor of 0.01.

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.14

0.12

0.11

0.25

0.20

0.16

Final Settlement DARI Index

minus Strike Level

(Add 0.1 for Strike 0.1)

0.01

1.00

0.50

0.33

Subtract Strike 

Level From DARI 

Index then use 

Table 3.

For Strike Level 

0.01", add 0.01 to 

difference.

Table 3

DARI Conversion Factor

$2.50

Table 2

Final Settlement DARI Index Value

$1.75

$2.00

$2.25

$1.00

$1.25

$1.50

DARI Contract Tables

Table 1

Contract Premium and

Original Margin

per Contract

CX Futures Exchange, L.P.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6351

ROBERT ARTIS,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON , Defendant

- Appellee , and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BRYAN P. STIRLING; GREGORY KNOWLIN, individually and in their official capacities , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 01238

- RMG )

Submitted : August 30, 2018 Decided: September 11, 2018

Before DUNCAN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Robert Artis, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH , LLC , Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Robert Artis appeals the jury verdict entered in favor of Michelle Williamson on
Artis’ excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). On appeal, Artis contends that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and he disputes the admission of various testimony and evidence admitted at trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Artis neglected to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of
law after entry of the jury’s verdict . “Absent such a motion, . . . [we are] powerless to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial.” Ortiz v. Jordan , 562 U.S. 180, 189 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. Consequently, Artis has forfeited his challenge to the jury’s verdict

. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 154

- 60 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that postverdict motion challenging sufficiency of evidence supporting jury’s verdict is necessary to preserve issue for appeal). Artis likewise failed to preserve all but one of his arguments concerning the
admission of certain evidence at trial. See Padilla v. Troxell , 850 F.3d 168, 178 (4th Cir. 2017) (providi ng appellate review of evidentiary issue is forfeited if issue not raised before trial court). With respect to Artis’ preserved claim that the district court erred in permitting prior act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) , we discern no abuse of
disc retion

. Smith v. Balt

. City Police Dep’t , 840 F.3d 193, 200 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review).4 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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 filing of Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) by CapSource
Financial, Inc. (Registrant), I, Steven J. Kutcher, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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 Registrant.

|                      |     |                                                 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------
|DATE:   July 25, 2007 | By: | /s/   Steven J. Kutcher                         
|                      |     |                                                 
|                      |     | Name: Steven J. Kutcher                         
|                      |     | Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer

---
<PAGE>

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

ACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Westaff (USA), Inc.
Western Medical Services, Inc.
MediaWorld International
Westaff Support, Inc.
Westaff (GP), Inc.
Westaff (LP), Inc.
Westaff (CA), Inc.

INACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Western Medical Services (NY), Inc.
Alternative Billing Services, Inc.
Western Technical Services, Inc.
Western Legal Services, Inc.
Western Permanent Services Agency, Inc.
Kontorservice, Inc.
Best Temporaries, Inc.
Best Temporaries Federal Systems, Inc.

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Australia:
Westaff (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
Western Personnel Services Pty. Ltd.
Western Temporary Services Pty. Limited

Denmark:
Westaff A/S

New Zealand:
Westaff NZ Limited

Norway:
Westaff AS
Kontorservice A/S

Singapore:
Westaff (Singapore) Pte Ltd

United Kingdom:
Westaff (U.K.) Limited
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 Homeland Resources Ltd. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Armando
Garcia, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:  March
16, 2010





/s/
      Armando GarciaArmando
      Garcia,President,
      Secretary & Treasurer(principal
      executive and financial officer)
Certification of CEO 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 Orion Energy Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the Company), on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Neal R. Verfuerth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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. Date: August 9, 2010 /s/ Neal R. Verfuerth
Neal R. Verfuerth
Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019432EN.01001101.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ

(Case C-396/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, Point FCL.065 - Scope ratione temporis - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Discrimination on grounds of age - Article 2(5) - Article 4(1) - National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 - Aircraft pilots - Protection of national security)

(2019/C 432/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gennaro Cafaro

Defendant: DQ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is necessary for public security within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is proportionate within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---