alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01033101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/331 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/331

---

(2004/C 88 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject:   Harmonising size labelling systems

Subject:

Last January we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the internal market. These ten years have seen changes which have profoundly transformed Europe and the lives of its citizens. Barriers have been removed and doors have been opened. Consumers have an indisputably wider choice of high quality products, and thanks to the euro, can compare prices more easily.

However, there currently exist at least four different systems for indicating clothing and shoe sizes within the European Union. Italy, France, Germany and the UK all have their own systems. This lack of harmonisation does not make the life of consumers and exporters any easier.

Does the Commission not believe that the elimination of these technical differences would make it easier to complete the European single market? If so, how does the Commission intend to achieve such harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

(2 April 2003)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written question E-3437/02 by Mr Menrad (1).

1

The Commission would like to reiterate that it does not, at present, foresee any initiative to standardise or harmonise clothing and footwear sizes and labelling in Europe.

Although many operators in the Community clothing sector claim that a harmonised system would improve industrial competitiveness, the existence of different sizing systems in itself has not been recognised as a barrier to trade, as defined by Community law. Besides, the Commission is not aware of any Community-wide consensus between stakeholders and/or Member States on the matter. One possible way forward would be through an industry led initiative to establish voluntary agreements between all interested parties (manufacturers, importers, consumers ...) and, possibly, national authorities.

The European Committee for Standardisation is currently developing work on size labelling for all kinds of garments, and on measurement methods. These standards have not been mandated by the Commission and are industry-led. Industry will be free to apply these standards as and when it sees fit.

As far as footwear is concerned, the Commission is aware of initiatives developed by industry aimed at establishing standardised measurements in order to increase the use of information and communication technologies in the sector. However, as in the textiles sector, a consensus of stakeholders and national authorities on a Community-wide harmonisation of sizing systems has not emerged. Under these circumstances, the Commission believes that voluntary agreements are at the moment the best way forward for this sector.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 208.

1

---
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report") of Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

| |  |  | /s/THEODORE F. CRAVER, JR.Theodore F. Craver, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |                                                                                                
| |  |  | /s/W. JAMES SCILACCIW. James Scilacci
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy            

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly 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.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 594 

To limit the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SANDERS, and Ms. MIKULSKI) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To limit the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cluster Munitions Ci5 vilian Protection Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE, SALE, OR TRANSFER OF 

7 CLUSTER MUNITIONS. 

8 No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any 

9 Federal department or agency may be obligated or ex10 pended to use, sell, or transfer any cluster munitions un11 less— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 594 IS

1 (1) the submunitions of the cluster munitions 

2 have a 99 percent or higher functioning rate; 

3 (2) the policy applicable to the use, or the 

4 agreement applicable to the sale or transfer, of such 

5 cluster munitions specifies that the cluster munitions 

6 will only be used against clearly defined military tar7 gets and will not be used where civilians are known 

8 to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civil9 ians; and 

10 (3) not later than 30 days after such cluster 

11 munitions are used, the President submits to the ap12 propriate congressional committees a plan, including 

13 estimated costs, for cleaning up any such cluster 

14 munitions and submunitions which fail to explode 

15 and continue to pose a hazard to civilians that is 

16 prepared, as applicable— 

17 (A) by the head of such Federal depart18 ment or agency in the event such cluster muni19 tions are to be used by the United States Gov20 ernment; or 

21 (B) by the government of the country to 

22 which the United States Government sold or 

23 transferred such cluster munitions. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 594 IS

1 SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER. 

2 The President may waive the requirement under sec3 tion 2(1) if, prior to the use, sale, or transfer of cluster 

4 munitions, the President— 

5 (1) certifies that it is vital to protect the secu6 rity of the United States; and 

7 (2) not later than 30 days after making such 

8 certification, submits to the appropriate congres9 sional committees a report, in classified form if nec10 essary, describing in detail— 

11 (A) the steps that will be taken to protect 

12 civilians; and 

13 (B) the failure rate of the cluster muni14 tions that will be used, sold, or transferred and 

15 whether such munitions are fitted with self-de16 struct or self-neutralization devices. 

17 SEC. 4. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DE18 FINED. 

19 In this Act, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional com20 mittees’’ means the Committee on Foreign Relations of 

21 the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

22 House of Representatives. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### Dorothy Allen, Respondent, v James O. Braxton, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 224]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Peter J. Notaro, J.), entered November 22, 2004 in a personal injury action. The judgment, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant James O. Braxton, awarded plaintiff $262,194.86.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover *1273damages for injuries that she sustained when she was struck by a vehicle driven by James O. Braxton (defendant). Following a trial on damages only, the jury awarded plaintiff $65,000 for past pain and suffering and $195,000 for future pain and suffering. Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of his motion seeking an adjournment of the trial (see *Betro v Carbone,*5 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111 [2004]; *see generally Harper v Han Chang,*267 AD2d 1011 [1999]). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s subsequent motion to strike the note of issue (see *Plonka v Millard Fillmore Emergency Physicians Servs., P.C.,*9 AD3d 869 [2004]; *Watts v Town of Gardiner,*90 AD2d 615, 616 [1982]; see *also Grant v Wainer,*179 AD2d 364 [1992]; *Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto,*161 AD2d 583, 583-584 [1990]). The court also did not err in granting the cross motion of plaintiff to compel defendants to accept service of her supplemental bill of particulars alleging her posttraumatic stress disorder (see *Glionna v Kubota, Ltd.,*154 AD2d 920 [1989]; *Hauch v Padula,*114 AD2d 807 [1985]). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the supplemental bill of particulars did not allege a “new injury” but, rather, merely supplied a diagnostic label to injuries previously alleged by plaintiff (CPLR 3043 [b]; see *generally Tate v Colabello,*58 NY2d 84, 86-87 [1983]; *Maisonet v New York City Hous. Auth.,*276 AD2d 260 [2000]; *Villalona v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.,*261 AD2d 185 [1999]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they do not require reversal. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32








CERTIFICATION




By signing below, each of the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of LSB Financial Corp. (the “Registrant”) that (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.









Date:
November 16, 2009
/s/
Randolph F. WilliamsRandolph F. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
November 16, 2009
/s/
Mary Jo DavidMary Jo DavidVice President and Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to LSB Financial Corp. and will be retained by LSB Financial
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of The Associated Group, Inc. as of and for
the three months ended March 31, 1998 included in Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                  589,370
<SECURITIES>                                                  0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                             6,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                              2,359
<INVENTORY>                                               2,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        633,421
<PP&E>                                                  138,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                           38,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,108,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   201,969
<BONDS>                                                 566,078
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  3,806
<OTHER-SE>                                              826,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,108,626
<SALES>                                                     316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         15,327
<CGS>                                                       217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            32,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          9,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            564
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       32,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (55,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              5,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (50,013)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (50,013)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>                             
<F1>
Does not include $1,225,626 of noncurrent marketable equity securities and 
$80,752 restricted cash and investments.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# C_2023329EN.01000801.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 22 May 2023 — Sindicato de Tripulantes Auxiliares de Vuelo de Líneas Aéreas (STAVLA) v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo S. A. and Others

(Case C-314/23, STAVLA)

(2023/C 329/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato de Tripulantes Auxiliares de Vuelo de Líneas Aéreas (STAVLA)

Defendants: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA, Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO), Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT), Unión Sindical Obrera (USO), Comité de empresa de Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA, Dirección General de Trabajo, Instituto de las Mujeres, Ministerio Fiscal, Sindicato Español de Pilotos de Líneas Aéreas (SEPLA), Sindicato Unión Profesional de Pilotos de Aerolíneas (UPPA)

Question referred

Does the fact that the company AIR NOSTRUM compensates a group such as cabin crew, where the majority of the individuals making up the group are women, for the expenses which they have to meet when travelling, other than those related to transport and accommodation, with an amount smaller than that received for the same expenses by another group of employees, such as pilots, in which the majority are men, constitute an instance of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to working conditions, contrary to European Union law and prohibited under Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54, (1) where the reason for such different treatment lies in the fact that each group is subject to a different collective agreement, both negotiated by the same company but with different union representatives, pursuant to Article 87 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Spanish Workers’ Statute)?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) — OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7408

NATHANIEL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CALEDONIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-222-5-H)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Johnson v. Caledonia Correctional Institution,

No. CA-98-222-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2023112EN.01004302.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/43

---

Action brought on 9 February 2023 — Goldair Tourism v EUIPO — Gkolemis Etaireia (Goldair Tourism)

(Case T-57/23)

(2023/C 112/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Goldair Tourism Touristikes Epicheiriseis AE (Paiania, Greece) (represented by: E. Ventouri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gkolemis Etaireia Aeroporikon Exypiretiseon AE (Marousi, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Goldair Tourism — European Union trade mark registration No 18 275 928

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 1385/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision for the part that affects the applicant, that is, for the part that accepted the cancellation request.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mary Jo David, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of LSB Financial Corp. (the "Registrant");

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 statement were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated 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 changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
> or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
> 
> 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 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 of not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
> 
> Date: May 13, 2004
> 
> /s/ Mary Jo DavidMary Jo DavidVice President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. RATLIFF.

No. COA08-235.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Anson (02CRS51221, 02CRS51222).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
STATE v. WOODS.

No. COA08-596.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Catawba (06CRS1887).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.