alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

City of Canton, Appellant

No. 06-23-00027-CV v.

Lewis First Monday, Inc., Appellee

Appeal from the 294th District Court of 

Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 23-

00020). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice van Cleef, Chief Justice Stevens 

and Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the City’s plea to the 

jurisdiction, vacate the trial court’s temporary order, and render a take-nothing judgment in favor 

of the City.

We further order that the appellee, Lewis First Monday, Inc., pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED AUGUST 3, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3104 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3104

 To provide for the establishment of campaign medals to be awarded to 
   members of the Armed Forces who participate in Operation Enduring 
                  Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2003

Mr. Snyder (for himself, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Evans, 
Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Andrews, 
 Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, and Mr. McGovern) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the establishment of campaign medals to be awarded to 
   members of the Armed Forces who participate in Operation Enduring 
                  Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MILITARY CAMPAIGN MEDALS TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE IN OPERATION 
              ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

    (a) Requirement.--The President shall establish a campaign medal 
specifically to recognize service by members of the Armed Forces in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and a separate campaign medal specifically 
to recognize service by members of the Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom.
    (b) Eligibility.--Subject to such limitations as may be prescribed 
by the President, eligibility for a campaign medal established pursuant 
to subsection (a) shall be set forth in uniform regulations to be 
prescribed by the Secretaries of the military departments and approved 
by the Secretary of Defense or in regulations to be prescribed by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it 
is not operating as a service in the Navy.
                                 <all>
```
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3104

AN ACT

To provide for the establishment of separate camIraqi Freedom. formed services who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and to members of the uni- uniformed services who participate in Operation paign medals to be awarded to members of the

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3104

AN ACT

To provide for the establishment of separate campaign medals to be awarded to members of the uniformed services

who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and to

members of the uniformed services who participate in

Operation Iraqi Freedom.
2

•HR 3104 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT.

4 The President shall establish a campaign medal spe5 cifically to recognize service by members of the uniformed

6 services in Operation Enduring Freedom and a separate

7 campaign medal specifically to recognize service by mem8 bers of the uniformed services in Operation Iraqi Free9 dom.

10 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY.

11 Subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by

12 the President, eligibility for a campaign medal established

13 pursuant to section 1 shall be set forth in regulations to

14 be prescribed by the Secretary concerned (as defined in

15 section 101 of title 10, United States Code). In the case

16 of regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the military

17 departments, the regulations shall be subject to approval

18 by the Secretary of Defense and shall be uniform through19 out the Department of Defense.

Passed the House of Representatives March 30,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2022258EN.01000301.xml

| 5.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 July 2022

(2022/C 258/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0455 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4391 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85960 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7658 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0037 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2958 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,745 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 401,52 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7100 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9440 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,5994 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5205 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3435 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2033 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6748 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4587 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 353,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,0275 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9977 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5301 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 684,13 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6138 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,487 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,298 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5663 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1972 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,5067 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0455

JPY

Japanese yen

141,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4391

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85960

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7658

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0037

ISK

Iceland króna

139,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2958

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,745

HUF

Hungarian forint

401,52

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7100

RON

Romanian leu

4,9440

TRY

Turkish lira

17,5994

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5205

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3435

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2033

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6748

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4587

KRW

South Korean won

1 353,40

ZAR

South African rand

17,0275

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9977

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5301

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 684,13

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6138

PHP

Philippine peso

57,487

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,298

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5663

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1972

INR

Indian rupee

82,5067

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2023246EN.01000701.xml

| 13.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/7

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2023/C 246/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 15 March 2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 90112 |
| Decision No | 046/23/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | Oslo Municipality |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Affordable homes scheme for the City of Oslo
  Agency of Real Estate and Urban Renewal |
| Legal basis | A letter of allocation from the City Council Department for Urban Development |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Give more people the opportunity to own their own home in accordance with the Norwegian housing policy.
  Counter social inequality and housing segregation, retain important employment groups in Oslo and avoid added pressure on city boundaries of Oslo. |
| Form of aid | Direct grant and debt write-off |
| Duration | 20 years |
| Economic sectors | Real estate activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Municipality of Oslo |
| Department of Urban Development |
| Rådhuset |
| Rådhusplassen 1 |
| N-0037 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

15 March 2023

Case No

90112

Decision No

046/23/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Region

Oslo Municipality

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Affordable homes scheme for the City of Oslo

Agency of Real Estate and Urban Renewal

Legal basis

A letter of allocation from the City Council Department for Urban Development

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Give more people the opportunity to own their own home in accordance with the Norwegian housing policy.

Counter social inequality and housing segregation, retain important employment groups in Oslo and avoid added pressure on city boundaries of Oslo.

Form of aid

Direct grant and debt write-off

Duration

20 years

Economic sectors

Real estate activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Municipality of Oslo

Department of Urban Development

Rådhuset

Rådhusplassen 1

N-0037 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. VICTOR MANUEL AVALOS

- RIVERA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50003
D.C. No. 3:17

- cr - 04006

- MMA

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5 , 2020 * *
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Avalos

- Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his bench

- trial conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the two

- year term of supervised release he is

c urrently serving following completion of his 18

- month sentence. We have

* 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

AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 50003

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Avalos

- Rivera first contends that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue the removal order underlying his conviction, and therefore that the district
court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment

. However, as Avalos

- Rivera concedes, t his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 11 60 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Karingithi
v. Barr , 140 S. Ct. 1106 (2020) , which we recently extended in Aguilar Fermin v.
Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020)

. Avalos

- Rivera also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) calculate the Guidelines range for his supervised release term ; (2) explain why supervised release was warranted notwithstanding his status as a deportable alien , and (3) justify the specific two

- year term it imposed

. W e review for plain error , s ee United States v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755 , 761 (9th Cir. 200 8 ) , and conclude that there is none. The district court properly explained that a

“ modest ” term of supervised relea se was appropriate in light of Avalos

- Rivera’s criminal history , which the court noted was “somewhat dated,” but serious

. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 ( supervised release may be appropriate for a defendant who is deportable if “it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case”)

. Given the court’s concern, and the discussion during the sentencing hearing of Avalos

-3 19

- 50003

Rivera’s extensive family ties in the United States, Avalos

- River a has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court calculated the supervised release Guidelines range , or said more to justify the imposition of the within

- Guidelines supervised release term. S ee Dallman , 533 F.3d at 762.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2011222EN.01000901.xml

| 28.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/9

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2011/C 222/10

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 26 January 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 69060 |
| Decision number | : | 9/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Innovation Cluster scheme |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Promotion of innovation |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Intensity | : | 50 % |
| Economic sectors | : | All |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development |
| PO Box 8112 Dep. |
| 0032 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

26 January 2011

Case number

:

69060

Decision number

:

9/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Innovation Cluster scheme

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c)

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

:

Promotion of innovation

Form of aid

:

Grant

Intensity

:

50 %

Economic sectors

:

All

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development

PO Box 8112 Dep.

0032 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,610,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              125,955,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,577,000
<INVENTORY>                                 82,644,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           219,241,000
<PP&E>                                     202,367,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,980,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             729,950,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      110,879,000
<BONDS>                                    180,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 29,485,000
<COMMON>                                       396,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 246,638,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               729,950,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           432,207,000
<CGS>                                      402,571,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              402,571,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            41,726,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,591,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (25,296,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (7,023,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,273,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  74,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (862,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,917,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
June 16, 2015

Mr. Steve Gaitten

121 E. Colonial Hamilton, VA 20158

Dear Mr. Gaitten:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your February 2, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 0239), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2021075EN.01000201.xml

| 4.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/2

---

European Free Trade Association

List of natural mineral waters recognised by Iceland and Norway

(Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 155, 3.5.2018, p. 9 and EEA Supplement No 28, 3 May 2018, p. 6)

(2021/C 75/02)

In accordance with Article 1 of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (1), as incorporated in point 54zzzzd of Chapter XII of Annex II of the EEA Agreement, a list of recognised natural mineral waters shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto.

LIST OF NATURAL MINERAL WATERS RECOGNISED BY ICELAND:

| Trade Name | Name of source | Place of exploitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Icelandic Glacial | Ölfus Spring | Hlíðarendi, Ölfus, Selfoss |

Trade Name

Name of source

Place of exploitation

Icelandic Glacial

Ölfus Spring

Hlíðarendi, Ölfus, Selfoss

LIST OF NATURAL MINERAL WATERS RECOGNISED BY NORWAY:

| Trade Name | Name of source | Place of exploitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bonaqua Silver | Telemark kilden | Fyresdal |
| Eira | Eira kilden | Eresfjord |
| Farris | Kong Olavs kilde | Larvik |
| Isbre | Isbre kilden | Buhaugen, Osa, Ulvik |
| Isklar | Isklar kildene | Vikebygd i Ullensvang |
| Fyresdal | Fyresdal kilden | Fyresdal |
| Olden | Blåfjell kilden | Oldedalen |
| Osa | Osa kilden | Ulvik/Hardanger |
| Rustad Spring | Rustad kilden | Rustad/Elverum |
| Snåsa | Snåsakilden | Snåsa |
| Voss | Vosskilden | Vatnestrøm/Iveland |

Trade Name

Name of source

Place of exploitation

Bonaqua Silver

Telemark kilden

Fyresdal

Eira

Eira kilden

Eresfjord

Farris

Kong Olavs kilde

Larvik

Isbre

Isbre kilden

Buhaugen, Osa, Ulvik

Isklar

Isklar kildene

Vikebygd i Ullensvang

Fyresdal

Fyresdal kilden

Fyresdal

Olden

Blåfjell kilden

Oldedalen

Osa

Osa kilden

Ulvik/Hardanger

Rustad Spring

Rustad kilden

Rustad/Elverum

Snåsa

Snåsakilden

Snåsa

Voss

Vosskilden

Vatnestrøm/Iveland

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 26.6.2009, p. 45.

---
DLD-339 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1643

___________

ANTHONY STOCKER MINA,

 Appellant 

v.

DAWSON R. MUTH; GOLDBERG MEANIX 

MUTH & MCCALLIN LAW FIRM; 

JUDGE HOWARD RILEY; 

COURT REPORTER HANDY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. 2-14-mc-00222)

District Court Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 17, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 29, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Anthony Stocker Mina sought permission to file in forma pauperis a motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to overturn a state-court judgment dismissing his

civil action in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The District 

Court granted Mina’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and, pursuant to its screening 

obligations under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, denied the Rule 60 motion and dismissed the case. 

The District Court concluded that it could not overturn a state court’s judgment under

Rule 60(b), and that Mina’s requested relief was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Mina appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

The District Court properly dismissed Mina’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to set 

aside the state court’s judgment. As the District Court reasoned, a federal district court 

cannot overturn a state court judgment under Rule 60(b). Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars Mina’s attempt invalidate the Court of Common Pleas’ judgment 

dismissing his case for failure to prosecute. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives 

federal district courts of jurisdiction “over suits that are essentially appeals from statecourt judgments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 

159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when four requirements 

are met: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of 
3

injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments’; (3) those judgments were rendered before 

the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and 

reject the state judgments.” Id. at 166 (alterations in original) (quoting Exxon Mobil 

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Mina’s claims satisfy 

these four requirements. Therefore the District Court correctly dismissed his case with 

prejudice. 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.