alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009055EN.01000402.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-539/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 26(3) - Single European emergency call number - Caller location information - Availability to the authorities handling emergencies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2009/C 55/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make caller location information available, to the extent technically feasible, to the authorities handling emergencies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make caller location information available, to the extent technically feasible, to the authorities handling emergencies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37 of 9.2.2008.

1

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   Compulsory testing of passenger cars

Could the Commission please indicate the current position in each Member State regarding the implementation of Council Directive 96/96/EC (1) on the compulsory testing of passenger cars over four years old every two years. Is the Commission planning to review that Directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Roadworthiness testing within the Union is governed by Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, which now includes the inspection of passenger cars and light vans within its scope and also gives detailed requirements for the testing of vehicle brakes and exhaust emissions.

Today, all Member States and Accession Countries have transposed and put into effect the Directive and therefore include passenger car testing within their national roadworthiness testing programmes in conformity with Directive 96/96/EC as amended (2). Since the Directive specifies minimum standards, some Member States have also introduced more stringent testing requirements or require more frequent testing or have extended the scope of technical inspection to cover more types of vehicles such as motorcycles.

Over the past decade there has been significant advances in vehicle construction standards, particularly in electronic control systems and the Commission is considering how roadworthiness testing requirements can evolve for the future. To assist in its analysis, the Commission is to launch soon a study on the assessment of future roadworthiness enforcement options for road vehicles taking account of the complexity of current vehicle safety and environmental control systems and their expected developments for the future and other developments such as ‘reciprocal recognition’ and the possibility of quality assurance schemes in some circumstances.

In the light of the study results which will probably take two years to complete, the Commission will decide on the appropriateness of modifying the roadworthiness-testing Directive.

----

(1)OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 48, 17.2.2001.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. James Edward DARDEN, Sr.

No. COA15-1134.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and Remanded.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**755 CA 13-00007**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MANUEL MOSLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MALCOLM R. CULLY, SUPERINTENDENT, COLLINS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

MANUEL MOSLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered November 7, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment granted the motion of respondents to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier II disciplinary hearing, that he violated an inmate rule. Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. The record establishes that the proceeding was untimely inasmuch as it was commenced more than four months after the final administrative determination ( see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Jackson v Fischer , 78 AD3d 1335, 1335, lv denied 16 NY3d 705). Petitioner contends that the proceeding was timely insofar as it challenged the denial of his grievance related to the inmate rule violation, and that the court therefore erred in failing to rule on the merits of that challenge. That contention lacks merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that the proceeding was timely with respect to the denial of petitioner’s grievance, we conclude that the allegations of the petition “were not ‘sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice’ ” that petitioner was also challenging the denial of his grievance, and thus the court had no reason to consider that purported challenge ( Matter of Abreu v Hogan , 72 AD3d 1143, 1143, appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836,**-2- 755 CA 13-00007** 

quoting CPLR 3013).

Entered: June 20, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O. JoeCaldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ O. Joe  Caldarelli                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      |   |
| O. Joe  Caldarelli  Chief Executive Officer  May 15, 2006 |

 

----
# C_2009032EN.01000501.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Klaus Bourquain

(Case C-297/07) (1)

1

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Conviction in absentia in respect of the same acts - Concept of ‘finally disposed of’ - Procedural rules of national law - Concept of ‘penalty which can no longer be enforced’)

Ne bis in idem

(2009/C 32/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Regensburg

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Klaus Bourquain

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Regensburg — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Interpretation of ne bis in idem principle — Conviction in absentia in respect of same acts — No enforcement and conviction subsequently covered by general amnesty

ne bis in idem

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, is applicable to criminal proceedings instituted in a Contracting State against an accused whose trial for the same acts as those for which he faces prosecution was finally disposed of in another Contracting State, even though, under the law of the State in which he was convicted, the sentence which was imposed on him could never, on account of specific features of procedure such as those referred to in the main proceedings, have been directly enforced.

ne bis in idem

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
Shon Prescott, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 29, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 22, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Knox McMahon be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge McMahon shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard *847as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge McMahon shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
<PAGE>
 


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01



               [LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP APPEARS HERE]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 23, 1997 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K of
XcelleNet, Inc. and subsidiaries into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statement on Form S-3, file No. 333-22231 and the Company's 
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-82630, 
33-82632, 33-92536, 33-92538 and 33-93384.


                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1997
# CE2004078EN.01016401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/164 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/164

---

(2004/C 78 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Personal injury awards

Subject:

The Commission will be aware of the significant disparities that can exist between personal injury awards for identical circumstances between Member States of the European Union.

Could the Commission inform me of any plans it may have to introduce measures to help ease this problem?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has taken a number of specific initiatives in the context of establishing a European area of justice that will be of benefit for an improved access to justice for personal injury claimants.

It has presented a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims (1), focussing on compensation from the state. The proposed Directive aims at establishing a minimum standard for all crime victims in the Union and facilitating access to compensation in cross-border situations. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

1

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Council Regulation on the applicable law to noncontractual obligations (2). The proposed Regulation would harmonise the conflict of laws of the Member States for cross-border disputes involving torts or delicts, and will greatly improve the predictability and clarity of the legal situation for personal injury claimants in cross-border situations.

2

The Commission supports projects carried out in this area also, which can serve to deepen the debate on what further measures could be taken at European level and also help to make information on national laws on personal injury more accessible for lawyers as well as citizens.

However, the Commission has no plans to launch measures towards harmonising personal injury laws in general. The added value of such an initiative can be questioned and the existence of a legal basis in the EC Treaty is unclear. Moreover, the main differences between the Member States would appear to be in the way different losses are evaluated and compensated for by the courts, in particular as concerns non-pecuniary losses. This reflects among other things, socio-economic differences between the Member States. It is not conceivable to proceed towards any kind of common European tariffs to even out such differences.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 427 final.

2

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,259-02

EX P ARTE TIVIRUS CRAF T, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 11084-A IN THE 411 T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM TRINITY COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of one count o f arson, one count of tampering with e vidence, and
one count of arson and sentenced to life, twenty y ears and two y ears imprisonment respectively
. H e filed this application for a writ of h abeas c orpus in the c o u nty of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T EX . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was denied his rig ht to an appeal because the district c lerk failed to timely f

ile the paperwork with the court of appeals, and failed to timely inform appellate counsel of his appointment. B ased on the record, Applicant is e ntitled to relief b ased o n a breakdown in the sy stem. Relief is granted. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 ( Tex
. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may2

file an out-of-time appeal o f his c onviction in cause number 11084 from the 411 t h District Court of Trinity County
. Within ten day s f rom the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indig e nt. I f Applicant is indig ent and wants to b e represented b y counsel, the trial c ourt shall a

ppoint counsel to represent him o n direct ap p e a l. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the T e xa s D e p a r t m e nt o f C r i m i n al J u stice–Correctional Institutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: J anuary

17, 2024 Do not publish
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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, William Hitchcock, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2001, that:





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





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





Dated:
                November 15, 2007/s/
                William HitchcockWilliam
                HitchcockChief
                Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3699 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3699

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right of a 
     claimant in a civil action before a Federal court to retain a 
 structured settlement broker to negotiate the terms of payment of an 
                     award, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2013

 Mr. Higgins (for himself, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Braley of Iowa, and Mr. 
  Richmond) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right of a 
     claimant in a civil action before a Federal court to retain a 
 structured settlement broker to negotiate the terms of payment of an 
                     award, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Structured Settlement Claimants 
Rights Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    (a) Federal Court Proceedings.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1660. Right to retain structured settlement broker
    ``A claimant in any civil action before a Federal court shall have 
the right to retain a structured settlement broker to act on behalf of 
that claimant for purposes of negotiating a schedule of payments or 
other terms of payment of a sum certain previously agreed to paid by or 
on behalf of the defendant in satisfaction of a judgment against that 
defendant or in accordance with the terms of a settlement. The court 
shall inform the claimant of this right at the appropriate time. The 
defendant shall provide timely notice of any professional relationship 
between the defendant and the broker if any such relationship exists or 
has existed.''.
    (b) Administrative Proceedings.--Section 554 of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) In the case of any proceeding under this section, a party to 
that proceeding shall have the right to retain a structured settlement 
broker to act on behalf of that party for purposes of negotiating a 
schedule of payments or other terms of payment of a sum certain 
previously agreed to paid by or on behalf of another party in 
satisfaction of a decision against that party or in accordance with the 
terms of a settlement between the parties. The agency shall inform the 
claimant of this right at the appropriate time. The defendant shall 
provide timely notice of any professional relationship between the 
defendant and the broker if any such relationship exists or has 
existed.''.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136304 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DEBORAH K. SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136304 

 COA: 280582 

WCAC: 07-000006 

ADVANCE TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC.,

and ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

 CORRIGAN, J., would refer attorney Stephen J. Smith to the Attorney Grievance 

Commission due to his behavior at the hearing before the magistrate. 

0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk