alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the General Court of 13 July 2011 – Koné v Council**

**(Case T-349/11)**

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Out of time – Clear inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263,
sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 11-12)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth
paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 16)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant. |

**Operative part**

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Mr Katinan Justin Koné is ordered to bear his own costs. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment. |
#### § 169.629 Compartments containing gasoline machinery or fuel tanks.

Spaces containing gasoline machinery or fuel tanks must have natural supply and mechanical exhaust ventilation meeting the requirements of American Boat and Yacht Council Standard H-2.5, “Design and Construction; Ventilation of Boats Using Gasoline.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 24

- 00506

- CV Brenda KING , Appellant

v. CLARK, MALOUF & WHITE, LLP and Florida Fine Cars, Inc. (CARVIX), Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 3 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV03996 Honorable Cesar Garcia , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2024
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION This is an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order. On July 22, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court ’ s order granting appellees ’ motion to abate and motion to compel arbitration. Thereafter, the trial court clerk filed the clerk ’ s record, but it did not contain a final judgment. In general, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Sabre Travel Int ’ l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG , 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019). “Final judgment” is a term of art, and it means a judgment that disposes of all parties and all claims and is final for purposes of appeal.04

- 24

- 00506

- CV

- 2

- See id

. When an order does not dispose of all pending parties and claims, it remains interlocutory and unappealable until a final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Id .; Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). An order compelling arbitration is an interlocutory order, and neither the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) nor the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) provide for an interlocutory appeal from it. Chambers v. Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 31

– 32 (Tex. 2007) (providing the TAA is “one

- sided, allowing interlocutory appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration” and the FAA “makes no provision for interlocutory appeals from an order compelling arbitration.” ); see also T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE § 171.098(a) (omitting orders granting motion to compel arbitration from list of appealable orders relating to arbitration). We therefore do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court ’ s order compelling arbitration until a final judgment is entered. Chambers , 242 S.W.3d at 32 (explaining order compelling arbitration may be reviewed on appeal from final judgment); Hum. Biostar, Inc. v. Celltex Therapeutics Corp. , 514 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (explaining court has ju risdiction to review order compelling arbitration after final judgment confirming arbitration award was entered). Accordingly, because it appea red we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we order ed appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response , but the response does not establish this court ’ s jurisdiction over her appeal. Instead, the response confirms appellant is attempting to pursue an appeal from an unappealable, interlocutory order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
#### William H. Vosburgh, *Respondent, v.*The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company, *Appellants*.

Motion for a new trial denied and judgment ordered for the plaintiff upon the verdict. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1911 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to require 

funding to help award recipients defray the costs of data collection 

requirements initiated pursuant to such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 to require funding to help award recipients defray the costs of data collection requirements initiated 

pursuant to such Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency and Ac5 countability in State and Local Contracting Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1911 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SET-ASIDE FOR STATE AND 

2 LOCAL RECIPIENTS OF AWARD FUNDING TO 

3 DEFRAY COSTS OF DATA COLLECTION. 

4 Section 1552 of the American Recovery and Reinvest5 ment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘may,’’ and all that follows through ‘‘reasonably’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘shall’’. 

8 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT FOR SET-ASIDE FOR AGENCY-WIDE 

9 OVERSIGHT. 

10 Subtitle D of title XV of division A of the American 

11 Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

12 5) is amended by adding at the end the following new sec13 tion: 

14 ‘‘SEC. 1555. SET-ASIDE FOR AGENCY-WIDE OVERSIGHT. 

15 ‘‘Federal agencies receiving funds under this Act may 

16 set aside an amount up to 0.5 percent of covered funds 

17 directed to that agency for the purposes of conducting 

18 comprehensive, agency-wide oversight and administration 

19 of projects under this Act.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Ford Motor Company, 

 Plaintiff/ 

 Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy 

Software, Inc., Versata Development 

Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc., 

 Defendants/ 

 Counter-Plaintiffs. 

Case No. 15-10628-MFL-EAS 

(consolidated with Case No. 15-cv-11624) 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING VERSATA’S MOTION TO REDACT 

TRANSCRIPT 

Pending before the court is Plaintiff Versata Software, Inc.’s Motion to Redact 

the September 28, 2021 “Motion to Compel Identity of Asserted ‘Combination’ 

Trade Secrets” Transcript (Dkt. 789). Having fully considered the matter, the Court 

GRANTS the motion. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 6, 2021 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 792, PageID.56327 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 2
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on December 6, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 792, PageID.56328 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 111.05-31 Grounding conductors for systems.

(a) A conductor for grounding a direct-current system must be the larger of:

(1) The largest conductor supplying the system; or

(2) No. 8 AWG (8.4mm2).

(b) A conductor for grounding the neutral of an alternating-current system must meet Table [111.05-31(b)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-111.05-31#p-111.05-31(b)).

Table [111.05-31](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-111.05-31)(b)—Neutral Grounding Conductor for Alternating-Current System

| Size of the largest generator cable or equivalent for parallel generators—AWG-MCM (mm2) | | Size of the system grounding conductor—AWG(mm2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Greater than | Less than or equal to |
| | 2 (33.6) | 8 (8.4) |
| 2 (33.6) | 0 (53.5) | 6 (13.3) |
| 0 (53.5) | 3/0 (85.0) | 4 (21.2) |
| 3/0 (85.0) | 350 MCM (177) | 2 (33.6) |
| 350 MCM (177) | 600 MCM (304) | 0 (53.5) |
| 600 MCM (304) | 1100 MCM (557) | 2/0 (67.5) |
| 1100 MCM (557) | | 3/0 (85.0) |
§ 204.5 Notification to claimant of action on claim. ( a ) If a claim is approved (either for the amount claimed or less than such full amount), the claimant, prior to the disbursement of an award, shall sign a document releasing the United States, its agents and employees from all further claims relating to the incident giving rise to the approved claim.
( b ) If the claim is finally denied, the official vested with such authority shall inform the claimant by certified or registered mail of the final denial of the claim. Notification of final denial shall include a statement that a claimant who does not accept or is dissatisfied with the action may institute suit against the United States not later than six months after the date of mailing of the notice of final denial.
( c ) A claimant may regard the failure of the Maritime Administration to make a final disposition of a claim within six months after the date of receipt of the claim by the Maritime Administration as a final denial for the purpose of filing suit.
#### § 272.11 Scope.

This subpart applies to any Eligible Vessel, other than one operating under an ODSA subject to part 294 of this chapter.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6644** 

NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. DUNN, Correctional Officer; TWINE, Correctional Officer; ROBERTS, Correctional Officer; CARLENS, Correctional Offic er; MCQUEEN, Correctional Officer; MOJET, Correctional Officer; JACKSON, Correctional Officer; MASKELUNY, Correctional Officer; PARHAM, Correctional Officer; WHALENS, Correctional Officer; PIEARCE, Correctional Officer; RAWLINGS, Correctional Officer; EZEL L, Correctional Officer; MOFFET, Correctional Officer , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00349

- T S E

- IDD )

Su bmitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to follow the court’s earlier order requiring him to particularize and amend his complaint. This

c ourt may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because Whi te’s complaint lacked specificity and he failed to remedy this fact by filing an amended complaint that articulated adequate facts, we conclude that the order White seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral orde r. Generally a district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without pre judice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Humboldt Bancorp and Subsidiaries:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-57856, 333-65317, 333-25827, 333-04745, and 333-64062) on Form S-8 of
Humboldt Bancorp of our report dated January 24, 2003, except for note 25, which
is as of March 13, 2003, with respect to (a) the consolidated balance sheets of
Humboldt Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the two years ended December 31, 2002, and (b) the combination of
the consolidated financial statements of Humboldt Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended, after restatement for the 2001
pooling-of-interests transaction, which report appears in the December 31, 2002,
annual report on Form 10-K of Humboldt Bancorp.




Sacramento, California
March 25, 2003
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00293-CR

Michael Riojas

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-17-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 22, 2019
#### § 168.15-45 Heating and cooling.

All quarters must be adequately heated and cooled in a manner suitable to the purpose of the space.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, James B. McCurry, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of PRG-Schultz International, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       By: /s/ JAMES B. MCCURRY         James B. McCurryMarch 21, 2007   *President, Chairman of the Board and*    *Chief Executive Officer*    *(Principal Executive Officer)*
EXHIBIT 10.25




---



##### 



Third provided however
     2




---



##### 



Very truly yours,
TRIAD FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Carl WebbName:
    Carl WebbTitle: TRIAD FINANCIAL RESIDUAL SPECIAL
PURPOSE LLCBy:
    /s/ Carl WebbName:
    Carl WebbTitle: Agreed and Accepted:
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP.By:Name:Title: 3




---



##### 








---



##### 



To:
    
    Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., as lender under the Master
Residual Loan Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2005 (as amended or
otherwise modified from time to time, the Master Residual Loan
Agreement), among Triad Financial Residual Special Purpose LLC,
JPMorgan Chase, National Association, and Citigroup Global Markets
Realty Corp.
  Borrower Section 2(f)
   Exhibit A
  Section
8
  5




---



##### 



TRIAD FINANCIAL RESIDUAL SPECIAL PURPOSE LLCBy:Name:Title: 6




---



#####
Exhibit 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-18265 of Biofield Corp. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 13, 2004
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to Biofield Corp.'s ability to continue as a going concern
and includes an emphasis of matter paragraph concerning Biofield Corp.'s status
as a Development Stage Enterprise) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Biofield Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2003 and to the reference to
us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of such
Registration Statement.


/s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2004
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 11

For the time period January 1, 2002, to the date of receipt of this letter, provide all

documentation, including engineering studies or mass balance studies, conducted to

determine emissions of NOX from each waste-gas stack at all indurating furnaces at

the facility.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: Chrissy Bartovich, Teresa Simetkosky, 

Stephani Campbell, Darren Gietzen (Hatch)

Answer:

This item was clarified during a conference call between USEPA and U. S. Steel that the intent is 

for third party reports or studies on NOx emissions. A file review was conducted to locate the 

responsive documents. Information found during the review has been included in the Item 11 

subfolder. A computational fluid dynamics modeling (CFD) report in included. There are both 

public and confidential business information (CBI) versions of the report. Consistent with the 

instructions of the Information Request, the CBI version of the report is provided in the separate 

CBI disc. Also included in the separate disc is MPCA’s concurrence that the CBI version of the 

report meets the requirements of CBI.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  LYCOS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN COMPUTING BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE (1)



<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                           YEAR ENDED JULY 31,
                             ===============================================
                                  1998             1997            1996
                             -------------   --------------   -------------- 

<S>                          <C>             <C>              <C> 
Net loss..................     (91,916,563)      (6,619,190)      (5,087,838)

BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS
  PER SHARE (2):
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding......      30,932,982       27,589,486       23,984,830
                             -------------   --------------   --------------

Shares used in computing
  per share amount........      30,932,982       27,589,486       23,984,830
                             =============   ==============   ==============

Basic and Diluted net loss
  per share...............   $       (3.13)  $        (0.24)  $        (0.21)
                             =============   ==============   ==============
</TABLE> 

(1) Diluted net loss per share has not been separately presented, as the amounts
    would not be materially different from basic net loss per share.

(2) On June 10, 1998, 2,250,000 of the Company's shares were sold under a 
    registration statement filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, filed
    on May 15, 1998. Of the 2,250,000 shares sold, 2,000,000 shares were sold by
    the Company and 250,000 were sold by CMG Information Services, Inc.
    ("CMGI"). The Company did not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares
    by CMGI. Proceeds to the Company were approximately $95 million, before
    deduction of expenses payable by the Company, estimated at $350,000. The
    Underwriters exercised an option to purchase 337,500 additional shares of
    Common Stock, resulting in additional proceeds to the Company of
    approximately $16 million.
#### Daniel Wallace, *Appellant, v.*Joab L. Clift, *Surviving Partner, etc.,*Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.