alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 430/11 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 430 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6311 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 430

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6311 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 430/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 430/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

ONDEO DEGREMONT, INC. AND 

 AMERICAN & FOREIGN INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1261-04-2 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 26, 2004 

DANIEL S. ROMAN 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lisa Frisina Clement; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on briefs), for 

appellants. 

 (Christopher C. Booberg; Thorsen & Scher L.L.P., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Ondeo Degremont, Inc. and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission, which ruled that Daniel S. Roman sustained his burden of proving a compensable 

occupational disease, Mixed Connective Tissue Disorder, arising out of and in the course of his 

employment. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion, we affirm the 

award. See Roman v. Ondeo Degremont, Inc., VWC File No. 210-82-59 (May 4, 2004). We 

dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 In rendering our decision, we grant employer’s Motion to Admit Exhibits B, C, and D 

into the record on appeal, and deny claimant’s Motion to Strike Questions to Be Presented.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tara May FRAZIER

No. 86P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

*52Sean Paul Vitrano, Attorney at Law, Wake Forest, for Frazier, Tara May.

Bethany A. Burgon, Assistant Attorney General, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of March 2017 by State of NC 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 3rd of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Cornelius Delane BENTON, Defendant.

No. COA 16-1149

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis Leon ABNEY

No. COA16-840

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
<PAGE>


OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year Ended
                                                            ----------------------------------------------         
                                                            October 25,       October 26,      October 27,
                                                               1998              1997             1996
<S>                                                             <C>               <C>              <C>
BASIC:

Net (loss) income available for common stockholders         $ (368,000)       $1,504,000       $ (177,000)
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========
Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding                          5,813,000         5,809,000        5,839,000
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========

Basic (loss) income per common share                        $    (0.06)           $ 0.26          $ (0.03)
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========

DILUTED:

Net (loss) income available for common stockholders         $ (368,000)       $1,504,000       $ (177,000)
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========

Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                                 5,813,000         5,809,000        5,839,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                     -            18,000                -
                                                            ----------        ----------       ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                5,813,000         5,827,000        5,839,000
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========

Diluted (loss) income per common share                      $    (0.06)           $ 0.26          $ (0.03)
                                                            ==========        ==========       ==========

</TABLE>
1499.

#### LEE & COMPANY *v.*GRICE.

The court abused its discretion in not allowing the defendant to open the default.

*446Motion to open default, from city court of Statesboro — Judge Brannen. October 14, 1908.

Submitted December 15, 1908.

Decided January *27,*1909.

*J. J. E. Anderson,*for-plaintiffs in error.

*F. T. Lanier,*contra.

Powell, J.

The defendants received from the plaintiff a notice, probably intended to fix liability for attorney’s fees, that suit on -certain notes would be brought to the next term of the city court -of Statesboro. The next term of that court was the June monthly term. The defendants went at once to an- attorney, who prepared for them a good plea to the merits, and they filed it in the cleric’s •office on J une 3. The suit on the notes, however, was not filed until June 6, and was made returnable to the July quarterly term. At the July term a default was marked on the docket. At the trial term the defendants, discovering that the plea had been filed prior to the filing of the suit, offered to open the default and plead instanter, tendering the same defense. The court refused the motion and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The object of our pleading act, in requiring the defendant to answer at the first term, is to speed litigation and to notify the plaintiff in advance as to what issues he must be prepared to meet at the trial term. If the defendant fails to answer at the first term -and a default is entered, he may nevertheless be permitted to plead, ■at the next term, and to open the default “for providential cause preventing the filing of a plea, or for excusable neglect, or where the judge, from all the facts, shall determine that a proper case has been made for the default to be opened on terms to be fixed by the court.” Civil Code, §5072. In this case the failure to answer regularly was due to the fact, not that the defendants were too lazy, but that they were too smart. The plaintiff, however, was not hurt; nor was he delayed in ascertaining the defense which was to be made against him. The plea was lodged in the clerk’s office, just as open to his inspection as if it had been filed regularly. We think, therefore, that the judge abused his discretion in not allowing the defendant to plead at the trial term. Some of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on this question have been rather strict; notably the holding in *Deering Harvester Co.*v. *Thompson,*116 *Ga.*419 (42 S. E. 772). In our opinion some of these cases, and especially the one just cited, are too strict, and are not con*447sonant with the spirit of the law or the highest dictates of truth nnd justice. We have no power to overrule these precedents; we will follow them when they are directly in point, but we will not •extend them. *Judgment reversed. ■*
# C_2010288EN.01003102.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMA

(Case T-264/07) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Procedure for designation of orphan medicinal products - Application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product - Obligation to submit the application for designation before the application for marketing authorisation is made - Decision of EMA on the validity of the application)

(2010/C 288/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CSL Behring GmbH (Marburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Koenig, Professor, and F. Leinen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, Agents) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), (represented by V. Salvatore, Agent, T. Eicke, Barrister and C. Sherliker, Solicitor

Intervener in support of the defendant European Commission: European Parliament (represented by E. Waldherr and I. Anagnostopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of 24 May 2007 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) declaring invalid the applicant’s application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CSL Behring GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and of the European Medicines Agency (EMA); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CSL Behring GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and of the European Medicines Agency (EMA);

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

---
# Official Journal C 96A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.096.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 96A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5429 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.096.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 96A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5429 March 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 096A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 29th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 096A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 29th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SALVAD OR SE RR ATOS- QU I ROZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 75082 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 764- 754 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S a l va dorS e rr a t os - Q ui r oz , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( I J ) de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l . O ur 

# FI LED JU N 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 08- 75082

j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e deny i n p artand d i sm i ss i n p art th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. O urr e vi e w of

the r e c or d r e ve a l s no s upportf orS e rr a t os - Q ui r oz ’ s c ont e nt i on th a t th e I Jp r e

ju d g e dh is c a n c e lla tio n c la im o rd is p lay e da n yb ia s o ra n im o s ity to w a r dh im . See V

arga s-H erna ndezv. G on zalez , 49 7 F . 3d 91 9, 92 5-26 (9th C i r. 2007) ( a c know l e dgi ng the a ge nc y ’ s s t anda r d f orr e c us a l s e tf

orth i n M at te rof E x a me , 18 I. & N . D ec . 30 3, 30 6 (B IA 19 82 )) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that S e rr a to s - Q u ir o z f

a ile dto s h o w e x c e p tio n a l an de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h ar d s h ip to h is U .S . c itiz e n c h ild r e n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey , 55 2 F . 3d 97 5, 97 9 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). F i na l l y , S e rr a t os - Q ui r oz ’ s c ont e nt i on–tha thi s r e m ova l w oul d r e s ul ti n the depri vat i on of hi s c hi l dren’ s r i gh tt o rem ai n w i th thei r f ather–do es no tra i se a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im . See Cab re ra-A lvarez v . G on zales , 423 F . 3d 1006, 1012- 13 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ex p lain in g th at ag en cy n ec es sa rily co n sid er s e ff ec t o f p ar en t’ s r e m o v a l o n th e in te r e s ts o f th e c h ild , an dd o e s n o t a c t in am an n e rc o n tr aryto C o n g r e s s ’ in te n t, w h e n e v a lu a tin g a n dd e n y in g c an c e lla tio n c la im ) ; Sa lva do rCa lle r o s v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 8 9 F .3 d9 5 9 , 9 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t h ar d s h ip st andard do es no tvi ol at e due process ).3 08- 75082

P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and
as the Chief Financial Officer of Boyd Bros Transportation Inc., respectively,
certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, which accompanies this
certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Boyd Bros. Transportation Inc., at the dates and for
the periods indicated. The foregoing certifications are made pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be
relied upon for any other purpose.

This the 26th day of March 2004.

                                         /s/ GAIL B. COOPER
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Gail B. Cooper
                                         Chief Executive

                                         /s/  RICHARD C. BAILEY
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Richard C. Bailey
                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Boyd Bros. Transportation Inc. and
will be retained by Boyd Bros Transportation Inc., and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B. Alva Schoomer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ B. Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer September 27, 2007
# C_2022205EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2021–2022 SESSION

Sitting of 11 November 2021

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Smith                   
|David A. Smith                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer

May 25, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. McClure, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(3) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Date: August 8, 2008



/s/ Michael J. McClureMichael J. McClureExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00308-CR

____________________

DAVID CHARLES KIRKLAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

______________________________________________________ _____________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-09-10315 CR 

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed 

October 1, 2014, and the reporter’s record was filed October 30, 2014. On 

December 1, 2014, the Court granted an extension of time to file the brief. On 

January 9, 2015, the appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Mark Phillips, was 

notified that neither the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time 

to file the brief has been filed. Although the brief of the appellant was due to be 

filed Wednesday, December 31, 2014, the brief has not been filed. The Clerk of 
2

the Court has contacted appellant’s court appointed attorney on February 12,

2015, February 17, 2015 and February 20, 2015 but has received no response. 

We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a 

hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the 

appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). If the 

appellant is not incarcerated, but fails to appear at the hearing after having been 

notified to do so, or after reasonable attempts to notify him have been made, 

then the trial court may enter a finding that appellant no longer desires to 

pursue the appeal and send said finding to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.8(b)(4). If the appellant is present for the hearing, we direct the trial court to 

determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant 

desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief 

of the appellant has not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded 

to late notices from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed 

counsel, Mark Phillips, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and 

replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2) 

(West Supp. 2014). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve 

appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute 

counsel.
3

The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial 

court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of 

the court reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial 

court judge are to be filed on or before March 30, 2015.

ORDER ENTERED February 26, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.