alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014431EN.01002702.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Fricopan Back v Commission

(Case T-300/14 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 431/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fricopan Back GmbH Immekath (Klötze, 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.

---
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-B Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2019 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)**
RECEIVED \H The Court of Aopeals Sixth District JUL 0 2 ZQft D; jtk Todd Turner
Wood Cou PO BoxstfOl Quitman, TX 75783 istrict Clerk 

### The TURNER Firm PO Box 100696 Fort Worth, Texas 76185

todd@theturnerfirm.net

June 20, 2015



### Re: Steven Brown v. Tim Jackson Construction Co., Inc. et al. 

## ^pellant'Gdme~'Nby06n5^m(i2'3^V=:====:^^ Trial Court Cause No. 2013-116 Dear Court Clerk: 

### My office address and email have changed so please make sure your records accurately reflect same as Ihave recently received adocument from months ago: The Turner Firm POBox 100696 Fort Worth, Texas 76185 Todd@theturnerfirm.net 

### Enclosed is the Clerk's Record fee of$233.00. Please contact the appellate court as soon as possible to notify them ofthis payment. 

### If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

cc: 

### i/^ Sixth CourtofAppeals
Exhibit 32.1

# SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION

| | In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penn Treaty
American Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, William W. Hunt, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my
knowledge:
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) | the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
               period ended June 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
               Companys financial condition and results of operations.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                          |  |                                                                                   
|------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  September 26, 2005 |  | /s/William W. Hunt  
    William W. Hunt
    President and Chief Executive Officer

---
# C_2014235EN.01001801.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T-141/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

2014/C 235/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1)

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. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Allstate Texas Lloyds

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00428

- CV

Trial court case number: 1156670

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

Relator, Allstate Texas Lloyds, filed a mandamus petition on August 6, 2021, challenging :

(1) the trial court’s May 13, 20201 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel and (2) the trial

court’s July 29, 2021 order denying Relator’s motion to reco nsider. O n August 11, 2021, Relator

filed an emergency motion requesting a stay of all proceedings in the underlying case pending our

determination on the mandamus petition. Relator’s stay motion is DENIED. Relator’s mandamus

petition remains pending.

It i s so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Gordon Goodman

______

Acting individually

Date: ___ August 12, 2021

_____
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re J. A. PATTON, Minor. April 1, 2021

No. 354392

Montcalm Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2018-000840-NA

AFTER REMAND

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and TUKEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her 

child, JAP, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), and (j). On initial appeal to this Court, we

affirmed the trial court’s determination that statutory grounds existed to terminate respondent’s 

parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). In re Patton, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued February 18, 2021 (Docket No. 354392), p 3. 

Because the child was placed with relatives, but the record contained no evidence that the 

trial court considered that relative placement when considering the child’s best interests, we 

concluded that the factual record was inadequate for purposes of the best-interests determination. 

Id. at 3-4, citing In re Mays, 490 Mich 993, 994; 807 NW2d 307 (2012). Therefore, this Court 

vacated the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights and remanded for a new 

best-interests determination, retaining jurisdiction. In re Patton, unpub op at 4.

On remand, the trial court conducted the best-interests determination, and concluded that 

the record showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination of respondent’s parental

rights was in the child’s best interests. The trial court therefore entered a new order terminating 

respondent’s parental rights to the child. The matter now returns to this Court after remand.

Whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child must be proved by 

a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). This 

Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s ruling that termination is in the child’s best interests. 

In re Hudson, 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011). When this appeal was originally 

before this Court, we took “no position on whether consideration of the bare fact of relative 
-2-

placement should have any material impact on the trial court’s ultimate conclusion on the best 

interests” of the minor child. In re Patton, unpub op at 4. Having reviewed the transcript of the 

trial court’s best-interest findings, and being familiar with the reasons why the trial court concluded 

that statutory grounds existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights, we conclude that the trial 

court did not clearly err in determining that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the 

child’s best interests. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental 

rights.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

/s/ Jane E. Markey

/s/ Jonathan Tukel
# C_2015016EN.01003901.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council

(Case T-22/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time - No individual concern - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law)

(2015/C 016/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amal Bergallou (Lot, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions link the entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time for that travel to receipt of the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance, and, second, application for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-015-CV

IN THE MATTER OF D.W.D.

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

	FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	D.W.D., a juvenile, was adjudicated to have engaged in delinquent conduct and was committed to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) for a term not to exceed five years.  D.W.D. appeals from the disposition phase only.  We will affirm.

	The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the applicable law is well-settled.

	In his first issue, D.W.D. contends that the evidence is factually and legally insufficient to show that (1) reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child or to make it possible for the child to return home and (2) the child, in the child’s home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of probation.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(i)(1)(B), (C) (Vernon Supp. 2004).  Having reviewed the evidence under the applicable standard of review,2 we conclude that there is some evidence supporting the trial court’s findings and that this evidence is not so weak, or so overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, that a new trial should be ordered.  We overrule D.W.D.’s first issue.

	In his second issue, D.W.D. contends that the trial court erred by considering the two prior offenses for which he was previously placed on probation.  D.W.D. concedes, however, that “[h]ad the social history report been admitted and [had] it recited these prior offenses, this would be a moot argument.”  D.W.D.’s social history report, which included these two prior offenses, was considered by the trial court.  Under family code section 54.04(b), the trial court may rely on a juvenile’s social history report in making a disposition.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(b); In re J.K.N., 115 S.W.3d 166, 171-72 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); In re A.F., 895 S.W.2d 481, 485-86 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ).  There is no requirement that the report be introduced into evidence before the trial court may consider it.  See In re J.A.W., 976 S.W.2d 260, 263-64 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (court could consider section 54.04(b) reports that neither side offered into evidence); see also A.F., 895 S.W.2d at 486 (social history report not subject to strict application of the rules of civil evidence).  We overrule D.W.D.’s second issue.

	Having overruled both of D.W.D.’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

								JOHN CAYCE

								CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.

WALKER, J. concurs without opinion. 

DELIVERED: April 22, 2004
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50447 

Summary Calendar

__________________

LESLIE RAY FOSTER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK M. GARNER, Warden; JAMES EASLEY, Sgt.;

FLETCHER SMITH, Co.3; BRENDA BRETEY,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-93-CV-115

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leslie Ray Foster requests leave to appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP) the district court's denial of his motion for the

appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Because

Foster's appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue, his motion

for IFP is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d

260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R.

42.2.
<PAGE>   1







                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
<PAGE>   2
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


     NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                              STATE OF INCORPORATION

Moovies of the Carolinas, Inc.                               Delaware

Moovies of Georgia, Inc.                                     Delaware

Moovies of Iowa, Inc.                                        Delaware

Moovies of Michigan, Inc.                                    Delaware

Movie Warehouse Franchise Systems, Inc.                      Delaware

Moovies Real Estate Company                                  South Carolina

E.C. 6, Inc.                                                 Virginia

SONI, Inc.                                                   Virginia

PQ3, Inc.                                                    Virginia

SNO, Inc.                                                    Virginia

GBO, Inc.                                                    Virginia

D-Skippy, Inc.                                               Virginia

DCO, Inc.                                                    Virginia

PTO, Inc.                                                    Virginia

The Movie Store, Inc. #2                                     Georgia

The Movie Store III, Inc.                                    Georgia

Alpharetta, Media Associates, Inc.                           Georgia

Rio Media Associates, Inc.                                   Georgia

Pic-A-Flick of Greenville, Inc.                              South Carolina
# C_2018328EN.01004001.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission

(Case T-455/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and P. Ferrari, and subsequently by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, and subsequently by H. van Vliet, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

---
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-03849, 333-116739,
333-139177, and 333-153408) of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2009 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ballantyne of
Omaha, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule II, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.

Our
report dated March 16, 2009, on the consolidated balance sheets of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule II, refers to Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.'s adoption of the fair value method of
accounting for stock-based compensation as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment, on
January 1, 2006 and the adoption of the recognition and disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,Employer's Accounting for
Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, as of December 31, 2006.

KPMG
LLP

Omaha,
Nebraska
March 16, 2009

---



QuickLinks