alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anna Crespo, Appellant, v Paul Pucciarelli, Defendant, and Amboy Bus Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 586]

*1049In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated February 23, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Amboy Bus Co., Inc., and Carlos Santiago for leave to serve an amended answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity of the remedy provided pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, the defendants Amboy Bus Co., Inc. (hereinafter Amboy), and Carlos Santiago demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking such relief *(see Lane v Beard,*265 AD2d 382 [1999]). Moreover, the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient, did not prejudice the plaintiff, and was not totally devoid of merit *(see Santori v Met Life,*11 AD3d 597 [2004]; *Goldstein v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp.,*267 AD2d 426 [1999]).

Amboy and Santiago also established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of the affirmative defense which the Supreme Court permitted them to add to their answer. They demonstrated that Amboy and Merit were co-subsidiaries of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. (hereinafter AETC) and, in fact, were alter egos of each other for purposes of the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law *(see Thompson v Bernard G. Janowitz Constr. Corp.,*301 AD2d 588 [2003]) by showing that both companies shared the same offices and employees, that the vehicles used in their bus businesses were shared by their common employees (without reference to their employment status), and that the same individual was president of both companies and president and chief executive officer of their common parent corporation, AETC. Additionally, the employees of both Amboy and Merit were covered under the Workers’ Compensation policy of insurance *1050procured by Atlantic Express Transportation Group, Inc., the owner of all the outstanding shares of AETC.

In opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
STATE v. David FELTON.

No. 186P10-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

David Felton, Swan Quarter, for Felton, David.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

A. Leon Stanback, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of May 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
NC ASS'N OF EDUCATORS, INC., et al. v. STATE of NC.

No. 228A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Narendra Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Philip A. Hostak, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for The State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of July 2015 by Plaintiff-Appellee Philip A. Hostak for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
February 14, 1978

78-9 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE, OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Corporation for Public Broadcasting—

Grants—Monitoring Administration of (47

U.S.C. § 392)

This memorandum is in response to your request for our opinion concerning 

the question of administration of existing public educational television or radio 

broadcasting facilities grants. The question has been raised in connection with 

proposed legislation now being reviewed by your Office. The issue presented is 

whether compliance with conditions contained in existing grants previously 

awarded under the present law should be monitored in the future by the 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), by the Corporation for 

Public Broadcasting (CPB), or by some third agency such as the Department of 

Justice.

Under current law, if, within 10 years after completion of a project for which 

a grant has been awarded, certain conditions no longer continue to be met, the 

United States is entitled to recover a proportionate amount of the value of the 

facilities, determined either pursuant to agreement as to that amount or by 

judicial action (47 U.S.C. § 392(0)- Although this provision gives the Government a continuing right to seek to recover such amounts, as a practical matter, 

unless the grantee voluntarily tenders an agreed-upon sum, recourse to a 

judicial proceeding will be necessary. In future administration of existing 

grants a key role will continue to be played by the agency charged with 

monitoring the status of grantees (currently HEW), for only it will become 

aware of noncompliance with required conditions and be in a position to take 

steps to recover funds due.

It therefore appears that the potential for recapturing funds cannot realistically be regarded simply as property which can be treated without concern for 

any trailing strings. The sort of administrative role necessarily required in these 

circumstances clearly cannot be played by a litigating agency such as the 

Department of Justice. We question whether CPB should be called upon to

39
assume authority to monitor these grants where the Corporation’s anticipated 

role with respect to existing grants would be much the same as that currently 

played by HEW. CPB’s carefully preserved nongovernmental status might be 

legally jeopardized by following so closely in the steps of a government 

agency. Whether that step should be taken is, of course, a question of policy as 

to which we express no opinion.

L e o n U l m a n

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

40
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, I, Paul E. Muellner, Chief Financial Officer, 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
         of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.


                                                     /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Paul E. Muellner

August 9, 2002
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony DOVE.

No. 131P01-8.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Anthony Dove, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of June 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Willie Clarence ALSTON.

No. 439P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Willie C. Alston, Pro Se.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Nash County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
STATE v. Anthony Craig WALKER.

No. 203P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

J. Aldean Webster, III, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Anthony Craig Walker, for Walker, Anthony Craig.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of June 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
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 annual report of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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:  February 24, 2010   /s/ Neal Christiansen Neal Christiansen, President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2023321EN.01005101.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2023 — VC v EU-OSHA

(Case T-126/23 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Exclusion from procurement procedures and from the award of grants financed by the general budget of the European Union and by the EDF for a period of two years - Publication of information relating to that exclusion - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests)

(2023/C 321/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: VC (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and S. Centeno Huerta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Re:

By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision 2023/01 of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) of 13 January 2023 on the exclusion of the applicant from participation in procedures for public procurement, grants, prizes, awards and financial instruments covered by the general budget of the European Union and from participation in award procedures covered by the European Development Fund (EDF) on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The operation of Decision 2023/01 of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) of 13 January 2023 on the exclusion of VC from participation in procedures for public procurement, grants, prizes, awards and financial instruments covered by the general budget of the European Union and from participation in award procedures covered by the European Development Fund on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 is suspended in so far as that decision provides for, in Article 4 thereto, the publication of certain information relating to the exclusion of VC’s participation in those procedures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The operation of Decision 2023/01 of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) of 13 January 2023 on the exclusion of VC from participation in procedures for public procurement, grants, prizes, awards and financial instruments covered by the general budget of the European Union and from participation in award procedures covered by the European Development Fund on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 is suspended in so far as that decision provides for, in Article 4 thereto, the publication of certain information relating to the exclusion of VC’s participation in those procedures.

| 2. | The application is dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application is dismissed as to the remainder.

| 3. | The order of 13 March 2023, VC v EU-OSHA (T-126/23 R) is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The order of 13 March 2023, VC v EU-OSHA (T-126/23 R) is cancelled.

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 742/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 742/2014 of 8 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 742/2014                     

# of 8 July 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEVON DALE BECKFORD, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Trubbey, a/k/a Bull, a/k/a Big Bull, a/k/a Fats, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-66) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devon Dale Beckford, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Devon Beckford appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for leave to file his appeal out of time and denying his motion to appeal nunc pro tunc. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Beckford sought to note his appeal beyond the ten-day appeal period and beyond the thirty-day period in which the district court could extend the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Therefore, the district court was without authority to extend the appeal period. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Beckford , No. CR-96-66 (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 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
KENION v. MAPLE VIEW FARM, INC.

No. COA07-1478.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 604349).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Brenza, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as 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. 

 

March 29, 2007 

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 writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023314EN.01001402.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB

(Case T-387/23)

(2023/C 314/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schelhammer Capital Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-386/23, Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.

---
# CE2004078EN.01069302.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/693

---

(2004/C 78 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Subject:   European assistance for the raising of the Le Joola ferry which sank off the coast of Senegal

Subject:

The Le Joola ferry sank off the coast of Senegal and Gambia in September with more than a thousand Africans and several European citizens on board, including the Netherlands nationals Roel and Lisette Arendshorst. Very many family members in Africa and Europe and the Netherlands want to recover the bodies of the victims and bury them on land.

Is the correct that the European Commission has already offered to fund the raising of the ship from the eighth European Development Fund?

Why has the government of Senegal still not accepted the offer and what is preventing the Senegalese government from raising the ship so that the victims can be given a dignified burial by their families?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

(28 February 2003)

The Commission has not made the offer mentioned by the Honourable Member since such funding falls outside the objectives of development co-operation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States as defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty and the Cotonou Agreement.

As mentioned in previous replies to similar Written Questions E-3166/02 (1) by Mrs Bonino, and E-3319/02 (2) and P-0108/03 (3) by Mr van den Berg, the Government of Senegal has not submitted any request to the Commission in respect of raising the ship.

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 105.

1

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 29.

2

(3)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 72.

3

---