alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023179EN.01001501.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 Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA

(Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial)

(2023/C 179/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MA

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Question referred

Must point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2) on type approval, the place where the harmful event occurred in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is

| a) | the place where the contract was concluded; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the place where the contract was concluded;

| b) | the place where the vehicle was delivered, or |
| --- | --- |

b)

the place where the vehicle was delivered, or

| c) | the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used? |
| --- | --- |

c)

the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136196 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136196 

 COA: 279654 

Oakland CC: 94-130950-FC 

SAMUEL PAUL PEARSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 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. 

s0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 of MetaCreations Corporation (Registration Nos. 333-3070,
333-17209, 333-20939, 333-26557, and 333-28403) of our report dated April 30,
1997, except as to Note 11 which is as of May 29, 1997, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Fractal Design Corporation, which appears
in this Form 10-K.

                                          PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

San Jose, California
March 27, 1998
Exhibit
32
 
 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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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 to the best of his
knowledge:
  (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/
      HARVEY P. EISENName:
                Harvey
      P. EisenTitle:
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
                May
      15, 2009
 
 /s/
      IRA J. SOBOTKOName:
                Ira
      J. SobotkoTitle:
                Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
                May
      15, 2009
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 715 LT Case No. 202 2

- CJ

- 424

_____________________________
L.R.L

. , A C HILD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County

. Stacy M. Youmans , Judge

.
Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek
, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

Octob er 24 , 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
S OUD , K ILBANE , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18553]



[[Page 54954]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1605-DR]


Alabama; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 29, 2005:

    Greene and Pickens Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Hale and Tuscaloosa Counties for Individual Assistance and 
Public Assistance.
    Jefferson and Marengo Counties for Public Assistance.
    Choctaw, Clarke, and Sumter Counties for Individual Assistance 
and Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for 
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 
B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal 
assistance.)
    Baldwin, Mobile, and Washington Counties for Public Assistance 
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and 
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 
B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal 
assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-18553 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 

















July 15, 2014












Charles Bernhardt


23 Birch Road


Malvern, PA 19355







RE:           Interim Chief Financial Officer position







Dear Charles:







We are pleased to offer you the temporary position of Interim Chief Financial Officer at Echo Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), reporting to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  Your base salary will be $220,000 per year. This is a full time temporary position and we expect you to devote all of your working time and attention to it.  If you accept this offer, your start date will be July 16, 2014. In addition, for the period of July 11, 2014 through July 15, 2014, you will be employed by the Company as the Special Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer.







During this period, you are eligible to receive medical and dental insurance. The Company currently pays 80% of the premium for medical and dental coverage, with the employee paying the remaining 20% of the premium.


 


Please review the enclosed Confidentiality Agreement carefully.  Your employment is contingent upon your acceptance of the obligations set forth in this document.  If you have any questions regarding this document, please contact me at 215-717-4108.







This letter is a summary of the terms of the Company’s employment offer to you.  It is not a contract and employment is at-will.  It is also understood that this letter does not alter your right or the Company’s right to terminate the employment relationship, at any time, with or without cause and with or without notice.







If you wish to accept this offer, please sign below and return this letter and a signed Confidentiality Agreement to me.


 


We hope that you will be joining us at Echo Therapeutics and we look forward to working with you.




 


 


Sincerely,







/s/ Kimberly Burke







Kimberly Burke


Interim Chief Executive Officer




Accepted this 16th day of July, 2014:












/s/ Charles Bernhardt


Charles Bernhardt
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 23, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 07-12668 and 07-13423

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00490-CV-FTM-99-DNF

DAVID P. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee, 

versus 

WILLIAM ELROD CLARK, 

Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 23, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Elrod Clark appeals from an adverse final judgment following a
2

jury trial in which Clark was found liable for defamation for statements made in

regard to David P. Johnson in two newspaper publications. On appeal, Clark has

challenged the final judgment only as it pertains to the district court’s denial of his

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial

following the jury’s verdict. Clark also filed a separate appeal from the district

court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Johnson on Clark’s counterclaims. Upon

agreement of the parties, both appeals have been consolidated. After oral argument

and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court in

each of these appeals is due to be affirmed. 

We review the district court’s determination on a motion for judgment as a

matter of law de novo. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir.

2007). In ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury

has returned its verdict, “a court’s sole consideration of the jury verdict is to assess

whether that verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” Id. The court should

review all of the evidence in the record, and in doing so, “must draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility

determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,

Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

We conclude the verdict here was supported by sufficient evidence that the
 To the extent that Clark argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for 1

judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial because particular statements in the

relevant publications were non-actionable pure opinion and thus, should never have been

presented to the jury, we disagree. 

3

relevant publications contained false assertions of fact and implied other

undisclosed facts which were false, and that those false statements were

defamatory as to Johnson. Moreover, there was sufficient evidence from which the

jury could conclude that the false facts in the newspaper article were attributable to

Clark. Finally, Clark’s challenge to the award of attorneys’ fees to Johnson is 1

without merit as he has failed to articulate any substantive arguments in opposition

to the award, which we find was justified under Florida law. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2007117EN.01003802.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/38

---

Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

(Case F-31/07)

(2007/C 117/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (XX) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report (‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5, ‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant has the potential to carry out functions in category B*; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report (‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5, ‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant has the potential to carry out functions in category B*;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward, first, the fact that the administration made manifest errors of assessment in so far as it did not accept that she had the potential to carry out functions in category B* for the purpose of the attestation procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). In particular, in contrast to what was stated in the applicant's CDR, her duties as head of computer training fall within the scope of category B*.

Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, transparency, the audi alteram partem rule and the principle of sound administration of staff. In particular, she submits that some documents used for the purposes of her appraisal were not communicated to her at the appropriate time.

audi alteram partem

Thirdly, the applicant raises the infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to give reasons.

Fourthly, the applicant alleges the infringement of the principle of equal treatment of staff and non-discrimination, in so far as the duties carried out by a head of computer training, she submits, are assessed in different ways for the purposes of the attestation procedure depending on the directorates general and the hierarchical superiors.

---
In the Matter of B.L.C.

No. COA16-135.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Roger S. Legette, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 23, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on February 18, 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 Larry B. Hyman, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hyman 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 as 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 Hyman 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
# C_2009153EN.01000802.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-530/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Articles 3 and 4)

2009/C 153/16

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. J. Lois, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt in the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Art. 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive.

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136589 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136589 

 COA: 272910 
 Wayne CC: 06-003462-01

REGINALD HART,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2008 

judgment 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. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. Mark Wayne Ballard

125P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Mark Wayne Ballard, for Ballard, Mark Wayne.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of April 2016 by Defendant for Leave of the Court to File Notice of Appeal:

*34"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Michael McCRARY, Defendant.

No. COA13-1059-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated in part; Remanded.