alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016326EN.01002301.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council

(Case T-790/14) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission - Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the applicant's name on the lists - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 326/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Pettiti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 3), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU asking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered because of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Samir Hassan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Samir Hassan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---
# C_2014194EN.01002801.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/28

---

Action brought on 4 April 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)

(Case T-216/14)

2014/C 194/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1788/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1788/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EXTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69  155

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CITY OF TAMPA , Appellant, v. TAMPA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. No. 2D22-2630 September 27, 2023 Appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission. Thomas M. Gonzalez and Natasha Khoyi of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Luke Newman of Luke Newman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. MORRIS, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
§ 582.4505 Mono- and diglycerides of edible fats or oils, or edible fat-forming acids. ( a ) *Product.* Mono- and diglycerides of edible fats or oils, or edible fat-forming acids.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 876.5985 Enzyme packed cartridge. ( a ) *Identification.* An enzyme packed cartridge is an *ex vivo* prescription device that is used in enzymatic hydrolysis of macronutrients into their essential nutrient forms at the time of delivery. The device consists of an outer casing containing an inert polymer with a covalently bound enzyme through which nutritional formula is directed. The device fits in line with enteral feeding systems.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The patient contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 2 ) *In vivo* testing must be performed and must demonstrate that the device causes neither an adverse tissue response nor adverse performance.
( 3 ) Non-clinical testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be demonstrated: ( i ) Mechanical testing to demonstrate that the device can withstand clinical forces;
( ii ) Flow rate and leakage testing to demonstrate that the device does not impede the flow of enteral formula;
( iii ) Demonstration of enzymatic effect on intended macronutrient;
( iv ) The amount of enzyme that exits the cartridge must be characterized;
( v ) Validation that the device does not adversely impact the nutritional composition of enteral formula; and
( vi ) Validation that the device does not impede flow alarms on enteral feeding pumps.
( 4 ) Human factors testing must be performed to characterize use error risks.
( 5 ) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating package integrity and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
( 6 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) A detailed summary of *in vivo* testing pertinent to use of the device, including device-related adverse events;
( ii ) A detailed summary of compatible formulas that is supported by non-clinical testing, including the expected enzymatic conversion as a percentage;
( iii ) Detailed instructions on how to place the device into an enteral feeding circuit;
( iv ) A warning regarding the possibility for misconnections; and
( v ) Expiration date or shelf life.
( 7 ) Patient labeling must be provided and must include: ( i ) Relevant warnings, precautions, adverse effects, and complications;
( ii ) A description of the device and how it operates;
( iii ) Instructions on how to correctly use the device; and
( iv ) The benefits and risks associated with the use of the device.
[82 FR 47971, Oct. 16, 2017]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMAS TUFINO

- PLUMA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71528

Agency No. A205

- 710

- 547

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13 , 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA , Circuit Judges.

Tomas Tufino

- Pluma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immi gration Appeals’ order dismissing h is appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying h is application for asyl um, withholding of

removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , and voluntary

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

departure

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U .S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency ’ s factual findings

. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionar y denial of voluntary

departure. See Esquivel

- Garcia v. Holder , 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010) ;

Martinez

- Rosas v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable

legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary

determinations).

Substanti al evidence supports the agency’ s determination that Tufino

- Pluma

failed to establish a nexus b etween the harm he fears and a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( an applicant’s “ desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears

no nexus to a protected ground .” ). Thus, we deny the petition a s to Tufino

Pluma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s denial of CAT relief because

Tufino

- Pluma failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

or with the consent o r acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

PETITIO N FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.9900 Cord blood processing system and storage container. ( a ) *Identification.* A cord blood processing system and storage container is a device intended for use in the processing and the storage of cord blood. This device is a functionally closed processing system that includes containers, other soft goods, and a centrifugation system for cord blood concentration, and a final container for the cryopreservation and the storage of a cord blood product.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Cord Blood Processing System and Storage Container.” For the availability of this guidance document, see § 864.1(d).
[72 FR 4638, Feb. 1, 2007]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00439-CR

Enrique GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CRM-001083-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,038,802               8,782,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,292,974              12,886,226
<PP&E>                                         395,768               1,327,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,022                 182,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,191,416              75,526,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,626,725               4,229,725
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       42,191,181              54,473,947
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       215,975                 207,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,077,080              15,869,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,191,416              75,526,971
<SALES>                                      1,053,620               2,501,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,053,620               2,501,135
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,640,612               7,607,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,775,826               1,773,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,818                 119,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (65,073,998)             (6,505,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (802,211)               (795,281)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (64,271,787)             (5,710,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (64,271,787)             (5,710,230)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.26)                  (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.1080 Audiometer calibration set. ( a ) *Identification.* An audiometer calibration set is an electronic reference device that is intended to calibrate an audiometer. It measures the sound frequency and intensity characteristics that emanate from an audiometer earphone. The device consists of an acoustic cavity of known volume, a sound level meter, a microphone with calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, oscillators, frequency counters, microphone amplifiers, and a recorder. The device can measure selected audiometer test frequencies at a given intensity level, and selectable audiometer attenuation settings at a given test frequency.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 874.9.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 61 FR 1121, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38800, July 25, 2001]
# C_2015236EN.01004101.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Navarro v Commission

(Case T-556/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Minimum qualifications required - Refusal to offer employment - Infringement of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Error of law - Distortion of the facts))

(2015/C 236/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2014 in Navarro v Commission (F-46/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:104) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Navarro

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Victor Navarro to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Victor Navarro to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2





AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Kerris, 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:





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


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


By:/s/ Robert KerrisName: Robert KerrisChief Financial Officer


February 13, 2012
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****The computer-aided Analytic ProcessModel
 
Handbook | Appendix
 
SuDoc Number:D 101.60/9:86-06 | D 101.60/9:86-07
Item Number:0330-E-04 (online)
CGP System Number:001026644
 
October 11, 2017
 
 **
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20775

Summary Calendar

 

VARSHA SHAH, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, 

MEDICAL FOUNDATION; THE UNIVERSITY 

OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, 

AT HOUSTON MEDICAL SCHOOL; 

SAN JACINTO METHODIST HOSPITAL; 

MADELYN POLLOCK, M.D. Program 

Director; HAMILTON W. KILPATRICK, M.D., 

Chairman of Family Practice Program; 

DAN GANZHORN, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-1150

- - - - - - - - - -

August 7, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Varsha Shah appeals the district court’s opinions and orders

granting summary judgment to defendants on Shah’s claims that the

defendants canceled her third-year medical residency contract and

subsequently terminated her from a medical residency program 
No. 97-20775

-2-

without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Shah also claims that the actions were in retaliation for her

exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),

29 U.S.C. § 2601 et. seq. 

Shah did not bring a § 1983 claim against the state

defendants -- University of Texas System, Medical Foundation

(UTSF) or the University of Texas Health Science Center, at

Houston Medical School (UTHS). Shah’s § 1983 claim against the

remaining private defendants fails for lack of state action. See

Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1989); Albright v.

Longview Police Dept., 884 F.2d 835, 838 (5th Cir. 1989).

Shah’s FMLA claims fail. Assuming, arguendo, that the state

defendants could be held liable under a theory of respondeat

superior and that Shah could make out a prima facie case of

violation of the FMLA, Shah has failed to present competent

summary judgment evidence showing that the defendants’ stated

reason for dismissing her was pretextual. See Hypes on Behalf of

Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 1998), 

(citing Oswalt v. Sara Lee Corp., 889 F. Supp. 253, 259 (N.D.

Miss. 1995)(applying McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792 (1973)); cf. Walton v. Bisco Industries, Inc., 119 F.3d 368,

371 (5th Cir. 1997) (Title VII case); Ross v. University of Texas

at San Antonio, 139 F.3d 521, 526-27 (5th Cir. 1998)(AEDA case).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.4

                           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 Avery Communications, Inc. Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2001, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas C. Ratchford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
-------------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
December 16, 2002
Chief Financial Officer