alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022051EN.01002802.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

(Case T-546/20) (1)

(Public service contract - Tender procedure - Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low offer)

(2022/C 51/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium for lot A in the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium in the context of the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender in so far as it concerns lot A; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium in the context of the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender in so far as it concerns lot A;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0152. DIANE MARIE GNAM v. ESTATE OF JAMES G. WHITE et al.

In this equitable interpleader case, the Estate of James G. White and Richard

O. White filed a motion to set aside a consent default judgment and open the default.

The trial court granted the motion on March 1, 2024; on March 7, 2024, the court

certified its order for immediate review. On March 19, 2024, Diane Gnam filed this

application seeking to appeal the court’s order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA§ 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory reviewonly if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry ofthe order at issue that immediate review

should be had. The application to this Court then must be made “within ten days after

such certificate is granted.” Id. A certificate of immediate review is considered

granted on the date that it is filed with the clerk of court.1See Turner v. Harper, 231

Ga. 175, 176 (200 SE2d 748) (1973); Laurens County v. Dixon, 133 Ga. App. 727, 728

(213 SE2d 26) (1975). The requirements of OCGA§ 5-6-34 (b) are jurisdictional, and

ifthe party seeking interlocutory reviewdoes not comply with these requirements, the

party must wait until final judgment to appeal. See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548,

551 (2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016).

1 Gnam has included a copy of an email from the deputy clerk of court stating

that the certificate of immediate review was not “scanned into the system” and

distributed to the attorneys until March 11, 2024. However, the due date of an

application for interlocutory appeal is not calculated from the date of service of the

certificate of immediate review upon the applicant; it is calculated from the date the

certificate was filed with the court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).

April 17, 2024
Here, because Gnam filed this application 12 days after the trial court entered

its

certificate of immediate review, it is untimely. See Graves v. Dean, 166 Ga. App. 186

(303 SE2d 751) (1983). Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/17/2024
### §544i. Economic development

#### (a) Economic development plan

Based on the Economic Opportunity Study and other appropriate information, each State, in consultation with the counties and the Commission, shall develop a plan for economic development projects for which grants under this section may be used in a manner consistent with sections 544 to 544p of this title.

#### (b) Funds provided to States for grants

Upon certification of the management plan, and receipt of a plan referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall provide $5,000,000 to each State which each State shall use to make grants and loans for economic development projects that further the purposes of sections 544 to 544p of this title.

#### (c) Conditions of grants

Each State making grants under this section shall require as a condition of a grant that—

(1) all activities undertaken under the grant are certified by the Commission as being consistent with the purposes of sections 544 to 544p of this title, the management plan, and land use ordinances adopted pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title;

(2) grants and loans are not used to relocate a business from one community to another;

(3) grants and loans are not used for program administration; and

(4) grants and loans are used only in counties which have in effect land use ordinances found consistent by the Commission and concurred on by the Secretary pursuant to section 544f of this title.

#### (d) Report

Each State shall—

(1) prepare and provide the Secretary with an annual report to the Secretary on the use of the funds made available under this section;

(2) make available to the Secretary and to the Commission, upon request, all accounts, financial records, and other information related to grants and loans made available pursuant to this section; and

(3) as loans are repaid, make additional grants and loans with the money made available for obligation by such repayments.

(Pub. L. 99–663, §11, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4292.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, Frank MUNGIA, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 00-50504. D.C. No. CR-00-00030-WJR-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 2002 *.

Decided Feb. 7, 2002.

*268Before PREGERSON, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Frank Mungia was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering in connection with the “money leasing” operations of his company, Capital Enhancement Corporation (CEC). On appeal, he urges the reversal of his conviction on three grounds. First, he argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because one of his defense attorneys suffered either from actual conflicts of interest that likely had an adverse effect on his representation, or from potential conflicts of interest into which the district court failed to make adequate inquiry. Second, he claims that evidence concerning letter communications between Victor Kirkland and business broker Ray Elwood was improperly excluded pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 16. Third, he maintains that the government failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the *scienter*element of the charged offenses.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not susceptible to resolution on direct appeal because they require the development of facts not in the record. *United States v. Hanoum,*33 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.1994); *see also United States v. Robinson,*967 F.2d 287, 290 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing exceptions). This case is no exception. Accordingly, we decline to review Mungia’s ineffective-assistance claims at this time. Those claims may be developed in Section 2255 proceedings.

Mungia’s Rule 16 argument and his contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence are obviously without merit. The record makes it clear that no letter evidence involving Ray Elwood was excluded by the trial court on the basis of Rule 16. The record also leaves no doubt that a rational jury could have found that Mungia *knowingly*acted to defraud the clients of CEC and to launder funds derived from that unlawful activity. According to Kirkland’s testimony, Mungia knew that Kirkland was not a bank with funds to back up the Confirmation of Account Letters that he was issuing; nevertheless, Mungia instructed him to issue the Let*269ters, stating that it didn’t matter whether funds would be available because Mungia’s clients would not be in a position to complain.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. The court grants Mungia’s unopposed request for judicial notice.
§ 106.41 Athletics. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
( b ) *Separate teams.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( c ) *Equal opportunity.* A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors: ( 1 ) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
( 2 ) The provision of equipment and supplies;
( 3 ) Scheduling of games and practice time;
( 4 ) Travel and per diem allowance;
( 5 ) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
( 6 ) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
( 7 ) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
( 8 ) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
( 9 ) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
( 10 ) Publicity.
Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. [45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020; 89 FR 33888, Apr. 29, 2024]
**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**

The undersigned, D. Elroy Fimrite, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of SNRG CORPORATION (Formerly Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.) hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SNRG CORPORATION (Formerly Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.) for the period ended June 30, 2005 (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 SNRG CORPORATION (Formerly Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.)                                                             |

Dated:  September 8, 2005

/s/ D. Elroy Fimrite

D. Elroy Fimrite, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 SNRG CORPORATION (Formerly Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.) and will be retained by SNRG CORPORATION (Formerly Texen Oil & Gas, Inc.) and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 300.814 Other State-level activities. Each State must use any funds the State reserves under § 300.812 and does not use for administration under § 300.813— ( a ) For support services (including establishing and implementing the mediation process required by section 615(e) of the Act), which may benefit children with disabilities younger than three or older than five as long as those services also benefit children with disabilities aged three through five;
( b ) For direct services for children eligible for services under section 619 of the Act;
( c ) For activities at the State and local levels to meet the performance goals established by the State under section 612(a)(15) of the Act;
( d ) To supplement other funds used to develop and implement a statewide coordinated services system designed to improve results for children and families, including children with disabilities and their families, but not more than one percent of the amount received by the State under section 619 of the Act for a fiscal year;
( e ) To provide early intervention services (which must include an educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates preliteracy, language, and numeracy skills) in accordance with Part C of the Act to children with disabilities who are eligible for services under section 619 of the Act and who previously received services under Part C of the Act until such children enter, or are eligible under State law to enter, kindergarten; or
( f ) At the State's discretion, to continue service coordination or case management for families who receive services under Part C of the Act, consistent with § 300.814(e).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1419(f))
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY HIGH

 810

 786

 663

 690

 714

 761

 832

 845

 930

 991

 1,009

 1,042

 1,046

 1,066

 1,098

 1,026

 1,069

 981

 911

 900

 730

 548

 450

 416

 426

 438

 463

 515

 538

 577

 554

 491

 519

 492

 445

 437

 394

 360

 344

 317

 325

 331

 327

 347

 312

 328

 315

 387

 385

 370

 339

 325

 328

 350

 382

 371

 381

 398

 732

 666

 582

 618

 609

 591

 647

 576

 661

 638

 642

 674

 601

 651

 632

 667

 744

 692

 715

 627

 492

 411

 382

 374

 386

 406

 411

 443

 462

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 23, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 468

 428

 376

 398

 392

 381

 416

 372

 424

 410

 413

 433

 387

 418

 407

 428

 476

 444

 458

 403

 320

 270

 252

 247

 255

 267

 270

 290

 302

TOTAL 16,732

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
### §460nnn–63. Water rights

Nothing in this subchapter shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

(Pub. L. 106–399, title II, §203, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1667.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 106–399, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1655, known as the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 460nnn of this title and Tables.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 17

- 00788

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 78823

- CR

Style: Gmarkous Wilson

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : February 8, 2019

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion:

Docum ent to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court wil l not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

_____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s / Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman, and Countiss

.

Date: 4/ 25/19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 15,684

 15,432

 13,793

 12,607

 12,558

 12,234

 13,657

 14,124

 14,228

 15,772

 16,503

 17,042

 16,499

 16,525

 16,249

 13,445

 12,032

 11,355

 11,450

 10,303

 8,134

 7,034

 5,279

 4,187

 2,487

 2,528

 2,664

 2,605

 2,538

 3,063

 6,211

 7,355

 5,100

 5,016

 6,058

 4,646

 6,343

 5,583

 6,014

 7,134

 7,557

 7,791

 6,473

 5,461

 6,100

 5,604

 5,237

 5,034

 5,283

 4,298

 3,785

 3,053

 2,525

 1,762

 1,488

 1,466

 1,454

 1,447

 1,475

 1,455

 10,829

 11,450

 10,466

 9,693

 9,713

 7,009

 9,903

 9,413

 9,517

 11,375

 12,011

 11,736

 10,919

 10,278

 10,183

 8,811

 8,334

 8,256

 7,938

 6,575

 5,214

 4,430

 3,491

 2,602

 1,870

 1,856

 1,901

 1,843

 1,953

 2,123

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 31, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF COSTA  RICA  INTERNATIONAL,  INC.  FOR THE YEAR  ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  1997,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,388,290
<SECURITIES>                                 1,935,671
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,199,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                   380,791
<INVENTORY>                                  7,106,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,455,266
<PP&E>                                      19,294,615
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,944,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,554,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,744,104
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,216,072
<COMMON>                                        19,810
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,053,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,554,538
<SALES>                                     70,018,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            70,018,094
<CGS>                                       53,206,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,206,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,849,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,682,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,382,505
<INCOME-TAX>                                   291,396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            926,232
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   926,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 520

 521

 517

 566

 570

 533

 519

 516

 511

 521

 536

 538

 579

 554

 578

 627

 668

 667

 682

 679

 489

 475

 465

 467

 506

 528

 549

 630

 640

 649

 491

 483

 470

 494

 492

 493

 477

 473

 468

 469

 470

 471

 467

 484

 485

 467

 457

 484

 451

 498

 457

 464

 462

 461

 468

 508

 526

 551

 605

 632

 506

 505

 496

 515

 515

 508

 502

 498

 490

 504

 504

 500

 514

 510

 518

 518

 539

 555

 531

 545

 474

 469

 463

 463

 485

 517

 542

 570

 621

 642

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 11, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 329

 328

 323

 334

 334

 330

 326

 324

 319

 327

 327

 325

 334

 331

 336

 336

 349

 359

 344

 353

 309

 306

 302

 302

 316

 336

 351

 368

 400

 413

TOTAL 15,519

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20