alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023179EN.01001502.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2023 — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A.

(Case C-85/23, Landkreis Jerichower Land)

(2023/C 179/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Landkreis Jerichower Land

Respondent: A.

Question referred

Must Article 24(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 (1) of 19 October 2009, as last amended by Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘storage’ covers an interruption of transport operations during which containers of Category 3 animal by-products are transferred to another vehicle and kept in that vehicle for a number of hours (up to eight) before being transported onwards to a processing plant, without the material being treated or transferred to other containers?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00594-CR

Adrian Lee, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-06-100026, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Adrian Lee was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to

thirty years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2008). Appellant’s

appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We have considered the evidence presented to the jury and reviewed the

procedures that were observed and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: August 22, 2008

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000930803
<NAME>                        Hauppauge Digital, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,585,127
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,451,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                   165,000
<INVENTORY>                                    11,936,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,830,693
<PP&E>                                         1,630,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                 694,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,606,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,808,134
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       93,106
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,705,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,606,524
<SALES>                                        53,291,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               53,291,070
<CGS>                                          43,020,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,641,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               67,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (438,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (417,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,061)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00




</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                                  JETFLEET III

                    Certification of Chief 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 this quarterly report of JetFleet III (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Neal D. Crispin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

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 JetFleet III and will be retained
by JetFleet III and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date: August 14, 2003               /s/  Neal D. Crispin
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Neal D. Crispin
                                    President, Chief Financial Officer
#### Helen Boyd, Appellant, v Rome Realty Leasing Limited Partnership et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 340]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *921plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 9, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently identify the cause of her trip and fall. All of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the opponent of the motion for summary judgment, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved in her favor *(see Mitchell v Fiorini Landscape,*253 AD2d 860, 861 [1998]). A fair reading of the deposition testimony of the 96-year-old plaintiff is that she alternately referred to what she tripped and fell on as broken concrete and a hole. Furthermore, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had constructive notice of the defective condition on the walkway *(see DeGruccio v 863 Jericho Turnpike Corp.,*1 AD3d 472, 473 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
**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**

| 1.   | This                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:  December                13, 2007 | /s/                Ronald L. Rossetti  |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                               | Ronald                L. Rossetti      |
|                                               | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41289

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VIRGINIA DELGADO-MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-489-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Virginia DelgadoMorales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Delgado-Morales has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6973

ERNEST LAMONT YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00430-RAJ)

Submitted: June 6, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Lamont Young, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-2-

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Lamont Young seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Council Regulation (EU) No 851/2014Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 851/2014 of 23 July 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to            the euro for Lithuania         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 851/2014                     

# of 23 July 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Lithuania

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 140(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 of 31 December 1998 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the                              Member States adopting the euro(1) determines those conversion rates as from 1 January 1999.

(2)According to Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Lithuania is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article 139(1)                              of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(3)Pursuant to Council Decision 2014/509/EU of 23 July 2014 on the adoption by Lithuania of the euro on 1 January 2015(2), Lithuania fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation of Lithuania is abrogated with                              effect from 1 January 2015.

(4)The introduction of the euro in Lithuania requires the adoption of the conversion rate between the euro and the Lithuanian                              litas. This conversion rate should be set at 3,45280 litas per 1 euro, which corresponds to the current central rate of the                              litas in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II).

(5)Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

In Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2866/98, the following line is inserted between the conversion rates applicable to the                     Latvian lats and the Luxembourg franc:                  

‘= 3,45280 Lithuanian litas’.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2015.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

1

OJ L 359, 31.12.1998, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 228, 31.7.2014, p. 29.
<PAGE>
 
              UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                           WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                 FORM 10-Q/A


[X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES 
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.


                                     OR


[ ]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _______TO _______.
                                        

                        COMMISSION FILE NO. 000-23767

                           SYMPHONIX DEVICES, INC.
           (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                  DELAWARE                             77-0376250
      (State or other jurisdiction of               (I.R.S. Employer
       incorporation or organization)              Identification No.)


                               2331 Zanker Road
                        SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131-1107
         (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

                                (408) 232-0710
             (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
  the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was
     required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing
                 requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X   No
                                                       -----   ---

As of October 31, 1998, 12,175,720 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock
were outstanding.
<PAGE>
 
      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this 10-Q/A report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



Date: November 19, 1998             SYMPHONIX DEVICES, INC.


                                    /s/ Harry S. Robbins
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Harry S. Robbins
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer



                                    /s/ Alfred G. Merriweather
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Alfred G. Merriweather
                                    Vice President Finance and Chief Financial
                                    Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                    Officer)

                                      2
STATE v. WHEELER.

No. COA08-694.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Cabarrus (07CRS8244, 07CRS8245).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
# CE2004084EN.01001601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/16

---

(2004/C 84 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Progress on asylum in Thessaloniki

Subject:

Will the Council please give its view on the progress made on the issue of asylum at the Thessaloniki Summit, particularly with regard to UK proposals to create ‘zones of protection’ to process asylum applications on or close to the borders of refugee producing countries?

---
BYNUM v. PROGRESSIVE INS. GROUP, INC., et al.

No. 338P14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Waddell Bynum, Charlotte, NC, pro se.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of January 2015 by Plaintiff to Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
IN RE J.L.W.

No. COA08-1011.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Harnett (06J59).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit









EXHIBIT 10.8



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
AARON’S, INC. EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN
(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2016)


THIS AMENDMENT to the Aaron’s, Inc. Employees Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is made by the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the “Administrative Committee”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Aaron’s, Inc. maintains the Plan for the benefit of eligible employees; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.1 of the Plan provides that the Administrative Committee has the authority to amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Committee has approved the amendment of the Plan to reduce the maximum percentage of a participant’s account balance and future contributions that may be allocated to the Aaron’s, Inc. stock fund to 10%, but allow existing investments in the Aaron’s, Inc. stock fund to remain in effect even if they exceed the new limit; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective October 4, 2016:
		
	1.
	Section 7.3(d) is amended to read as follows:


(d)    Restrictions on Investments.  To the extent any investment or reinvestment restrictions apply with respect to any Investment Funds (for example, restrictions on changes of investments between competing funds) or as a result of depletion of cash liquidity within an Investment Fund, a Participant’s or Beneficiary’s ability to direct investments hereunder may be limited.  A Participant or Beneficiary may not direct more than 10% of his future Contributions to be invested in the Company Stock Fund, and may not reallocate investments in his Account from other investments into the Company Stock Fund to the extent such reallocation would result in more than 10% of the Account being invested in the Company Stock Fund.  Furthermore, a Participant or Beneficiary may be restricted from initiating transactions that affect investments in the Company Stock Fund to the extent the Administrative Committee deems appropriate for compliance with securities laws.
		
	2.
	Except as provided herein, the Plan will remain in full force and effect.






1








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Committee has caused its duly authorized member to execute this Amendment on the date written below.


ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
	
				
	 
	 
	
 
	By: /s/ Robert W. Kamerschen

	 
	 
	 
	Name: Robert W. Kamerschen

	 
	 
	 
	Date: June 28, 2016








2
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA08-16.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS224125, 07CRS10510).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.