alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

  CERTIFICATION BY 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 the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2002 as originally filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2002 and as amended on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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.

                                        /s/ David C. Mahoney
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        David C. Mahoney
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 31, 2003










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023164EN.01003201.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2023 — flightright GmbH v TAP Portugal

(Case C-52/23, flightright)

(2023/C 164/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: TAP Portugal

Questions referred

| 1. | Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of whether those meteorological conditions are extraordinary? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of whether those meteorological conditions are extraordinary?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# CE2004088EN.01012501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/125

---

(2004/C 88 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Damage to valuable relics contained in the temple of St Sophia

Subject:

Recently the new director of the St Sophia museum, Serazitin Sachin, informed the Turkish Directorate-General for Museums and the Cultural Heritage that 550 invaluable icons and relics (gospels and sacerdotal vestments) had been severely damaged by damp whilst in storage in the temple of St Sophia having been brought in from many orthodox churches in Turkey when they fall into disuse.

Since 1985 St Sophia has been classified as a World Heritage Site and the latest Turkish National Programme for the implementation of the ‘acquis’ indicates that cultural works belonging to the world as a whole are protected under law of 17 June 1987 so as to preserve them in perfect condition for future generations. In view of this, will the Commission adopt a firm position on this matter?

Do the Turkish pre-accession and MEDA programmes include funding earmarked for cultural purposes, in particular the preservation of cultural treasures such as those stored in St Sophia?

Does the Commission not consider that such a serious situation constitutes a backward step regarding compliance with the Community ‘acquis’. What action does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

(12 November 2003)

As already mentioned in the Commission's recent reply to Written Question E-2962/03 by Mr Alavanos (1), the Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow provision of support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Hagia Sofia. The programme is designed primarily to support Turkey's alignment with Union standards in the political, economic and legislative areas. Project proposals are prepared by the Turkish Government and are subject to approval by the Commission, which is given only for projects that contribute to meeting the priorities of the Accession Partnership, as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 15 May 2003.

1

In addition, the Commission monitors very closely the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the relevant ‘acquis’ in the area of culture.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 771.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17936]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Review of a Program Project Grant Application.
    Date: October 18-19, 2005.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
    Contact Person: William D. Merritt, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8034, 
MSC 8328, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, 301-496-9767.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower. 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 31, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-17936 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6955

GARY WAYNE DANNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Detainee Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00013-REP)

Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: September 8, 2008

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Wayne Danner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Danner appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this civil rights action without prejudice pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on Danner’s failure to keep the court

apprised of any change of address. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Danner v. Piedmont Regional Jail,

No. 3:08-cv-00013-REP (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2008). 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
# CE2004070EN.01019701.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/197

---

(2004/C 70 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3017/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and protecting jobs in Portugal

Subject:

In its reply of 20 June 2003 to my question E-1507/03 (1), the Commission said that it was gathering the requisite information before replying to my question concerning Grundig's bankruptcy and the protection of the jobs concerning in Portugal.

1

Does the Commission have the information? If so, will it please forward it to me?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

(2 December 2003)

The Commission has now received the information it requested from the Portuguese authorities and would refer the Honourable Member to its supplementary reply to her written question E-1507/03 (2).

2

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 203.

1

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 203.

2

---
# CE2004070EN.01019201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/192 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/192

---

(2004/C 70 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3068/03

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Funding of bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe

Subject:

According to my sources, following the entry into force, on 1 January 2003, of the new Financial Regulation applicable to all the European institutions (Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1)) and its implementing procedures, the operating subsidies hitherto granted to bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe will henceforth be awarded on the basis of a new procedure. Instead of receiving automatic funding, these information centres will be required to take part in an invitation-to-tender procedure, failing which they will not be eligible for subsidies.

1

In addition to the operating subsidies, the bodies in question also received logistical support, such as supplies of publications, access to the ‘relays and networks Intranet’, back-up from the relays and networks helpdesk, in the form of documentary and technical assistance, from the meeting of relay heads, etc. It has been decided that bodies which submit an appropriate request will continue to receive this logistical support, on a temporary basis, in 2004.

This new procedure, which is intended to increase transparency in connection with the award of funding, raises three questions to which the European Commission alluded without providing a detailed answer:

| — | What criteria will be used to select the bodies which respond to the invitations to tender? |
| --- | --- |

—

What criteria will be used to select the bodies which respond to the invitations to tender?

| — | Will the logistical support measures continue after 2004? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the logistical support measures continue after 2004?

| — | In more general terms, the European Commission is now considering new forms of cooperation which will ensure that information is readily available to the public locally, whilst complying with the new rules laid down in the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. Can the Commission be more precise on this point? |
| --- | --- |

—

In more general terms, the European Commission is now considering new forms of cooperation which will ensure that information is readily available to the public locally, whilst complying with the new rules laid down in the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. Can the Commission be more precise on this point?

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (US dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)


                                               Year ended          Year ended          Year ended
                                              December 31,        December 31,        December 31,
                                                 2001                 2000                 1999
                                                 ----                 ----                 ----

<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Basic (loss) earnings per share:
     Net (loss) income                        $     (4,374)       $    (18,099)       $     17,055
                                              ============        ============        ============

     Weighted average number of
        shares                                  17,611,886          17,608,167          18,144,179
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------

     Net (loss) earnings per share            $      (0.25)       $      (1.03)       $       0.94
                                              ============        ============        ============

Diluted (loss) earnings per share:

     Net (loss) income                        $     (4,374)       $    (18,099)       $     17,055
                                              ============        ============        ============


     Weighted average number of
        shares                                  17,611,886          17,608,167          18,144,179
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------

     Assuming conversion of
        stock options under
        the employment agreement
        and Stock Option Plan                         --                  --               835,170
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------

     Weighted average number of
        shares and dilutive
        potential common stock
        used in computation                     17,611,886          17,608,167          18,979,349
                                              ------------        ------------        ------------

     Net (loss) earnings per share and
        dilutive potential common stock       $      (0.25)       $      (1.03)       $       0.90
                                              ============        ============        ============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3(Nos. 333-86842 and 333-68283) and Form S-8 (No. 333-100214) of AMB Property, L.P. and Forms S-8(Nos. 333-42015, 333-78779 and 333-90042) of AMB Property Corporation of our report dated March 9,2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Marine Harvest Norway and Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council**

**(Case T-113/06)**

Dumping — Imports of salmon originating in Norway — Definition of the Community industry — Like product — Composition of the sample of Community producers

1.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Entity absorbed by another legal person — Disappearance of that entity
— Substitution of the legal successor in the legal actions of its predecessor (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27-28)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing
anti-dumping duties — Different duties imposed on different undertakings — Admissibility limited for each undertaking to the
provisions concerning it in particular (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see paras 34-37)*

3.                     *Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Assessment of the impact of the imports on Community production
— Error in the definition of similar products — Sample of Community producers not representative — Infringement of Articles
3 and 4 of Regulation No 384/96 (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 3(1) and (2), 4 and 21) (see paras 46-48, 52-53, 58-63,
71-74)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in so far as it concerns Marine Harvest Norway AS, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway AS, for the anti-dumping duties applied to imports originating from the latter until 18 September 2007, and Alsaker Fjordbruk AS; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Marine Harvest Norway, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway, and Alsaker Fjordbruk; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
STATE of North Carolina v. David Dewayne SCHNEBELEN.

No. COA15-974.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Cite as State ex rel. Spaulding v. Indus. Comm., 93 Ohio St.3d 653, 

2001-Ohio-1893.]

1 

THE STATE EX REL. SPAULDING, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 

OHIO ET AL.; KROGER COMPANY, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Spaulding v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 653.] 

Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 

(No. 01-817 — Submitted November 13, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-640. 

__________________ 

 The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the 

opinion of the court of appeals. 

 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Robert A. Muehleisen, for appellee. 

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Karl J. Sutter, for appellant. 

__________________
EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC.
 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2009
 Jurisdiction ofName
    
    Incorporation
    
    
    Percent OwnershipDanner, Inc.
    
    Wisconsin
    
    
    100
    %LaCrosse International, Inc.
    
    Oregon
    
    
    100
    %Environmentally Neutral Design Outdoor, Inc.
    
    Oregon
    
    
    100
    %LaCrosse Europe, Inc.
    
    Oregon
    
    
    100
    %LaCrosse Europe ApS
    
    Denmark
    
    100% (subsidiary of LaCrosse Europe, Inc.)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54402-54403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18160]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Scoping Meetings and Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Assessment for the Proposed Designation of a Nonessential Experimental 
Population of Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Correction

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a 
notice in the Federal Register on August 3, 2005, with an incorrect 
date for submitting written comments and an incorrect reference to the 
time period for the scoping meetings. The document advised the public 
that a draft environmental assessment will be prepared, pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, in conjunction 
with a proposed rule to establish, under section 10(j) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, a Nonessential Experimental 
Population of Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) in the Rio 
Grande in Big Bend National Park and the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 
River in Texas.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under the heading Corrections for 
the corrected date for submission of comments.

ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions related to preparation 
of the draft environmental assessment and the NEPA process should be 
submitted to Joy Nicholopoulos, State Administrator, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 
Osuna NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113. Written comments may also be 
sent by facsimile to (505) 346-2542 or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66345420312339272a2600111548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="683a5a2e3f2d372924280e1f1b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Parody, (505) 761-4710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 2005, a document was published 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 44681) with an incorrect date for 
written comment submission and an incorrect reference to the time 
period for the scoping meetings.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 3, 2005, in FR Doc. 05-15303 on 
page 44681, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read: 
DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see 
ADDRESSES section) on or

[[Page 54403]]

before October 7, 2005, or at any of the three scoping meetings to be 
held in September 2005.

    Dated: September 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-18160 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>