alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011160EN.01001502.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission

(Case T-461/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the provision of credit and deferred debit card acquiring services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Restriction of competition - Potential competitor - Fines - Mitigating circumstances - Reasonable time - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence)

2011/C 160/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and Visa International Service (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by S. Morris QC, H. Davies and A. Howard, Barristers, V. Davies and H. Masters, Solicitors, and subsequently by S. Morris and P. Scott, Solicitor, A. Howard, V. Davies and C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, N. Khan and V. Bottka, and subsequently by N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4471 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/D1/37.860 — Morgan Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Visa Europe Ltd and Visa International Service to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Visa Europe Ltd and Visa International Service to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Vinni Vaugier VALENTINE

No. 138P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kathryn L. VandeBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Valentine, Vinni Vaugier.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of April 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES

514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 22, 2017

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Eric J. Zogry, Juvenile Defender, Marsha L. Levick, Attorney at Law, for Juvenile Law Center

Mark Dorosin, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Brent Ducharme, Allen Buansi, Peggy Nicholson, Attorneys at Law, Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research, K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, for Senator Angela Bryant, et al.

Morgan, J.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of May 2017 by Senator Angela Bryant, Senator Erica Smith-lngram, Representative Kelly Alexander, Representative Larry Bell, Representative Jean Farmer-Butterfield, Representative Rosa Gill, Representative George Graham, Representative Mickey Michaux, Representative Amos Quick III, Representative Evelyn Terry, Representative Shelly Willingham, Professor Theodore M. Shaw, and Great Expectations for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of May 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATES OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     Solely for the  purposes  of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  I, the
undersigned  Chief  Financial  Officer of Sew Cal Logo,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge,  that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the "Report"):

1.   Fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934: and

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



/s/ Judy Songer
----------------------------------
Judy Songer
Chief Financial Officer
March 1, 2005
STATE of North Carolina v. Danny Wayne POWELL, Defendant.

No. COA16-499

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
#### Donna GARRETT-OLIVER, Appellant, v. Gregory Bayston OLIVER, Respondent.

No. 25234.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Sept. 8, 2003.

James R. Sharp, Sharp & Bredesen, Springfield, for Appellant.

Shane P. Cantin, Crosby & Cantin, P.C., Springfield, for Respondent.

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Donna Garrett-Oliver (“Wife”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Greene County dissolving her marriage with Gregory Bayston-Oliver (“Husband”). Wife raises five points of trial court error. In Point Four, she complains of trial court error in failing to divide all marital debt as mandated by section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000.

Pursuant to the opinion issued by this Court in *Michel v. Michel,*94 S.W.3d 485, 489 (Mo.App.2003), we conclude the judgment in this case is not final in that it fails to divide a debt owed to Wife’s parents.1

Here the trial court made an incomplete finding by not dividing all marital debts as required by section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000. “As such, the trial court has not exhausted its jurisdiction, it has not disposed of all issues, and its judgment is not a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken.” *Id.*at 489. ‘While it is unfortunate this case cannot be finally concluded, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” *Id.*

Appeal dismissed.

PREWITT and GARRISON, JJ„ concur.

1

. Both parties testified at trial that the debt existed, and Husband concedes in his brief that the circuit court failed to assign responsibility for the debt.
STATE v. Jimmy Allen ROBERTS

79P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Jimmy Allen Roberts, for Roberts, Jimmy Allen.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of March 2017 by Defendant for Judicial Notice:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit 32(a)

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 on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Gottwald, chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                                       |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|                                                       | 
|By:                                                    |  | /s/ Thomas E. Gottwald
|Thomas E. Gottwald                                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer October 31, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. William M. HUGGINS

No. 459P00-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

William M. Huggins, for Huggins, William M.

*398Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of July 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied By Order of the Court in Conference, This the 17th of August 2017."
Desiree KING, BY AND THROUGH her Guardian ad Litem, G. Elvin SMALL, III; and Amber M. Clark, Individually v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d/b/a Albemarle Health/Albemarle Hospital; Sentara Albemarle Regional Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Sentara Albemarle Medical Center; Northeastern Ob/Gyn, Ltd.,; Barbara Ann Carter, M.D.; and Angela McWalter, CNM

No. 382PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Amberley G. Hammer, Attorney at Law, for King, Desiree, et al.

Wayne M. Mansulla, Attorney at Law, for D.K. (Minor), et al.

Samuel G. Thompson, Attorney at Law, Robert E. Desmond, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Northeastern OB/GYN, LTD, et al.

Charles E. Simpson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay C. Salsman, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Albemarle Hospital Authority, et al.

*522***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendants (Northeastern Ob/Gyn, Ltd., Barbara Ann Carter, M.D., and Angela McWalter, CNM) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
STATE of North Carolina v. Khaliq Adeeb ISHRAT

No. 215P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Khaliq Adoeb Ishrat, for Ishrat, Khaliq Adoeb.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of June 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alamance County:

*385"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
STATE v. Asaiah Ben YISRAEL

304A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2017

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Yisrael, Asaiah Ben.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of November 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 13th day of December 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2019280EN.01000702.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-348/18) (1)

(Preliminary reference - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due - Reallocation of unused reference quantities - National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)

(2019/C 280/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

Defendant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

In the presence of: Comitato Spontaneo Produttori Latte (COSPLAT), Società Agricola Galleana — Società semplice, VS and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State decides to reallocate unused reference quantities, that reallocation must be made between producers who have exceeded their reference quantities, in proportion to the reference quantities at their disposal.

---

(1)  OJ C 394, 20.8.2018.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-15877, 333-51681, and 333-79579) on Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories
Inc. of our report dated July 16, 2002, relating to the balance sheets of
Northfield Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended May 31, 2002 and for the
cumulative period from June 19, 1985 (inception) through May 31, 2002, which
report appears in the May 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Northfield
Laboratories Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 7, 2002
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this amended Quarterly Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard Songer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. Such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
      February 28, 2006, 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 such amended Quarterly Report on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Sew Cal Logo, Inc.

Dated: May 1, 2006


SEW CAL LOGO, INC.

By:   /s/ Richard Songer
Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 47I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 047I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6410 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 047I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6410 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 47 I/01 | Commission Decision of 16 December 2020 on instructing the central administrator to enter the national aviation allocation tables of Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 47 I/01

Commission Decision of 16 December 2020 on instructing the central administrator to enter the national aviation allocation tables of Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
KING v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al.

382PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2017

Amberley G. Hammer, Attorney at Law, for King, Desiree, et al.

Wayne M. Mansulla, Attorney at Law, for D.K. (Minor), et al.

Samuel G. Thompson, Attorney at Law, Robert E. Desmond, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Northeastern OB/GYN, LTD, et al.

Charles E. Simpson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay C. Salsman, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Albemarle Hospital Authority, et al.

Ann C. Ochsner, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Adam Stein, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of June 2017 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of June 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4296 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4296

    To amend Public Law 94-241 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
                                Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2014

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend Public Law 94-241 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
                                Islands.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Public Law 94-241 (90 Stat. 263; 122 Stat. 854) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2014, 
        except as provided in subsections (b) and (d)'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2019''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) in the third sentence of paragraph (2), by 
                striking ``not to extend beyond December 31, 2014, 
                unless extended pursuant to paragraph 5 of this 
                subsection'' and inserting ``ending on December 31, 
                2019'';
                    (B) by striking paragraph (5); and
                    (C) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph 
                (5).
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 07-51141

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELISEO IBARRA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-971-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a bench trial, Eliseo Ibarra was convicted of conspiracy to

illegally transport aliens and two counts of aiding and abetting the illegal

transportation of aliens for private financial gain. He received an aggregate

sentence of 90 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised

release. Ibarra now appeals, challenging only his convictions on the nonconspiracy counts.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51141

2

Ibarra argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his

convictions because there was no evidence that he knew that the two aliens at

issue in Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment were in this country illegally. Viewed

in the light most favorable to the verdict, United States v. Serna-Villarreal,

352 F.3d 225, 234 (5th Cir. 2003), the evidence presented at the trial showed

that a driver under Ibarra’s direction was transporting a load of illegal aliens.

That load included the two aliens named in Counts 2 and 3 of Ibarra’s

indictment. Despite the lack of any interpersonal contact between Ibarra and

the two aliens at issue here and the fact that the two aliens were unaware of

Ibarra’s existence,the circumstantial evidence supports the legal conclusion that

Ibarra knew that the aliens being transported by Ibarra’s driver were illegal

aliens. See United States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2000).

Because a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the

evidence established Ibarra’s guilty knowledge, there was sufficient evidence to

support the convictions on Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. See

Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d at 234.

Ibarra also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it

allowed one of Ibarra’s codefendants to make a blanket invocation of his Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He contends that the district

court did not make a sufficient inquiry into the validity and the scope of the

privilege. In light of the facts that the codefendant was charged in each of the

counts on which Ibarra was being tried, that the codefendant was awaiting

sentencing in his own case, and that Ibarra has not indicated what material and

relevant testimony was excluded, there was no abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Boyett, 923 F.2d 378, 379-80 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Goodwin,

625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d

1042, 1050 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.