alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1490** 

CYNTHIA GAYLE SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. TIMOTHY PURNELL , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00922

- JCC

- IDD )

Submitted : August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Cynthia Gayle Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Mikhael David Charnoff, Danny Mark Howell, Courtney South Schorr, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Cynthia Gayle Smith appeals the district court ’ s order s denying her motion to amend her civil complaint, dismissing the complaint, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af firm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Purnell , No. 1:11

- cv - 00922

- JCC

- IDD (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2011 & Mar. 20, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befor e the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015007EN.01005301.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/53

---

Action brought on 9th October 2014 — ZZ v ENISA

(Case F-105/14)

(2015/C 007/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to retain the applicant’s candidacy for the post of ‘legal officer’ (vacancy notice ENISA-TA-AD-2013-05).

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to bear the costs.

---
# C_2014282EN.01001602.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2014 — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH v Bundesvergabeamt

(Case C-166/14)

2014/C 282/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesvergabeamt

Defendant:

Other parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft; Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Other parties

Question referred

Question referred

Is EU law — in particular the general principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — to be interpreted as precluding a national legal situation in which an application for a declaration of an infringement of public procurement law must be made within six months of the conclusion of the contract, if the declaration of an infringement of public procurement law is a precondition not only of annulling the contract but also of bringing a claim for damages?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.

2

---
PUBLIC LAW 115–295—DEC. 6, 2018 132 STAT. 4379 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5868: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 13, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–295 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 530 Claremont 

Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, as the ‘‘Bill Harris Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BILL HARRIS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 530 Claremont Avenue in Ashland, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Bill Harris Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Bill Harris Post Office’’. 

Approved December 6, 2018. 

Dec. 6, 2018 

[H.R. 5868] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Mary G. Merritt, Vice President Finance 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|/s/    MARY G. MERRITT                     
|Mary G. Merritt Principal Financial Officer
|July 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         798,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  583,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     93,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,476,132
<PP&E>                                       6,505,223
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,286,604)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,048,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,661,662
<BONDS>                                      3,472,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,734,596
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,048,732
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               605,491
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,082,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,082,762)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016118EN.01003002.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case T-816/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED - Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Misuse of power - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.

1

---
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman Jefferson, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,248.

First District, Second Division.

April 8, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Howard Levine, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in full.
§ 516.153 Notification of decision regarding index listing. ( a ) Within 180 days after the filing of a request for addition of a new animal drug to the index, FDA shall grant or deny the request and notify the requestor of FDA's decision in writing.
( b ) If FDA denies the request for addition of a new animal drug to the index, FDA shall provide due notice and an opportunity for an informal conference as described in § 516.123. A decision of FDA to deny a request to index a new animal drug following an informal conference shall constitute final agency action subject to judicial review.
#### § 640.12 Eligibility of donor.

Establishments must determine the eligibility of donors of the source blood for Red Blood Cells in accordance with §§ 630.10 and 630.15 of this chapter.

[80 FR 29904, May 22, 2015]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- McClain Contracting Company, Inc. Under Contract No. NNS15AA10C APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61904
Joseph R. Duncan, Jr., Esq. Jeremy Gaddy, Esq.

Clark, May, Price, Lawley, Duncan &

Paul, LLC Birmingham, AL Scott Barber, Esq.

NASA ChiefTrial Attorney Jeffrey A. Renshaw, Esq.

Trial Attorney Stennis Space Center, MS ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: October 29, 2019

ministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61904, Appeal ofMcClain Contracting Company, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  583,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               634,739
<PP&E>                                       6,881,659
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,346,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,471,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,105,938
<BONDS>                                      3,531,724
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       24,028,294
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,471,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,705,216
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,043,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,951,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,951,097)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)
        

</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00256

- CV

___________________________

Original Procee din g 325th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 325

- 692724

- 20

Before Wallach, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### J.B. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus , the record, real pa rty in interest ’ s response, and relator ’ s reply and is of the opinion that relief

should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied and

our August 24, 2021 order to stay is hereby vacated

. Per Curiam

Delivered : September 2 4 , 2021
EXHIBIT 5.1

                 OPINION OF SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP

                                                               November 14, 2000

Board of Directors
Elcotel, Inc.
6428 Parkland Drive
Sarasota, Florida   34243

                     Re: Registration Statement on Form S-8

Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel for Elcotel,  Inc.  ("Elcotel")  in connection
with the  preparation  and filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission
under  the  Securities  Act of  1933 of a  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-8
relating to 500,000  shares of common stock of Elcotel (the  "Shares")  issuable
upon exercise of options granted to optionees pursuant to the Elcotel, Inc. 1991
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

         As counsel for Elcotel,  we have  examined such  corporate  records and
other  documents  of Elcotel and  considered  such  questions  of law as we have
deemed  necessary or appropriate  for purposes of this opinion.  On the basis of
such  examination,  we are  of the  opinion  that  the  Shares  have  been  duly
authorized,  and when duly issued against payment of the purchase price therefor
pursuant to the Plan and due exercise of the options thereunder, will be validly
issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

         We hereby  consent to the  inclusion  of this opinion as Exhibit 5.1 to
the Registration Statement.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD SUBJECT: Meeting with the National Tribal Caucus DATE: January 9, 2014 TIME: 15 minutes Participants: (Roll not taken) EPA – Nancy Stoner, Mike Shapiro National Tribal Caucus Representatives Summary of Meeting: As part of an Office of Water update, EPA provided a 15-minute update on the status of the rulemaking, including that the comment period closed and the number of public comments received. EPA responded to questions about next steps.

.
# C_2015138EN.01002601.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/26

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/14)

(2015/C 138/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1);

1

| — | maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the European Parliament relies on two pleas in law.

The first plea concerns the Council’s use of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, alternatively, a secondary legal basis which, in itself, is unlawful in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice.

The second plea concerns the Council’s use of a decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/688/EU which is not legally correct. The Parliament was not involved in the procedure which led to adoption of the contested decision. The Parliament infers from this, consequently, infringement of the Treaties and of an essential procedural requirement.

Should the Court annul the contested decision, Parliament considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264(2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 287, p. 22.

1

---
#### § 82.50 General.

A batch of a straight color listed in this subpart may be certified, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations in this part, for use in food, drugs, and cosmetics, if such batch conforms to the requirements of § 82.5 and to the specifications in this subpart set forth for such color.
# C_2014431EN.01002801.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission

(Case T-301/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))

(2014/C 431/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Meeting with Dupont/Pioneer, December 2, 2014, 10

‐ 11 am

The purpose of the meeting was for Dupont/Pioneer to present the results of soybean and corn

neonicotinoid seed treatment efficacy research.

Summary: Dupont/Pioneer presented slides showing the results of soybean and corn neonicotinoid

seed treatment efficacy research over the last 10 years. Most of the 1 hour meeting was spend on the

soybean research results. The slide set was not provided to EPA. The Dupont/Pioneer representatives

mentioned that they would be submitting the data as part of their public comments on the Agency’s

neonicotinoid soybean seed treatment analysis.

Attendees:

US EPA:

Allison Wiedeman (Office of the Administrator, Agricultural Advisor)

TJ Wyatt (Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD)

Jonathan Becker (OPP/BEAD)

Clayton Myers (OPP/BEAD)

Elizabeth Hill (OPP/BEAD)

Tim Kiely (OPP/BEAD)

Dupont/Pioneer:

Aaron Whitesel (DuPont Government Affairs)

Dr. Keri Carstens (Senior Manager, Integrated Product Research for DuPont Pioneer's Seed Treatment

Enterprise)
[No. 20553-0-II.

Division Two.

January 9, 1998.]

#### Mark Drawski, *Respondent,*v. The Department of General Administration, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurs-ton County, No. 94-2-00634-4, Richard C. Hicks, J., entered March 13, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, A.C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Hunt, JJ.
§ 582.7343 Locust bean gum. ( a ) *Product.* Locust (carob) bean gum.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.