alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014045EN.01001602.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union

(Case C-576/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions to the right of access - Article 4(1)(a), first and third indents - Public security - International relations)

2014/C 45/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ivan Jurašinović (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, avocate)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and B. Driessen, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended composition) of 3 October 2012 in Case T-465/09 Jurašinović v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of the Council decision of 21 September 2009 granting access to some of the reports drawn up by the European Union observers present in Croatia, in the Knin region, between 1 and 31 August 1995 — Application for access to documents held by the Council — Infringement of the right to a fair trial — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Reports of observers posted by the European Union in Croatia — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Sensitive documents — Risk of prejudice to the protection of international relations — Previous disclosure of those documents to a defendant in the context of criminal proceedings pending before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proper conduct of the criminal proceedings adversely affected.

Jurašinović

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 181 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 181

  Expressing the sense of the Senate that on March 2, every child in 
  America should be in the company of someone who will read to him or 
                                  her.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 1998

    Mr. Robb (for himself and Mr. Jeffords) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Senate that on March 2, every child in 
  America should be in the company of someone who will read to him or 
                                  her.

Whereas reading is a basic skill for a quality education, a requirement for a 
        successful life's work, and a source of pleasure throughout life;
Whereas reading ability is essential to our Nation's ability to remain 
        competitive in a global economy; and
Whereas the American Library Association, the National Family Literacy Council, 
        the National Association of Elementary School Principals, Reading Is 
        Fundamental, the International Reading Association, the Boys and Girls 
        Clubs of America, and others have joined with the National Education 
        Association to use March 2 as a national day to celebrate reading: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) March 2, 1998, shall be known as ``Read Across America 
        Day'' to focus on the basic component of learning;
             (2) every child should be in the company of someone who 
        will read to him or her on March 2, Dr. Seuss' birthday;
            (3) the success of Dr. Seuss and many others like him in 
        encouraging children to discover the joy of books is applauded; 
        and
            (4) all parents are encouraged to read with their children 
        for at least one half hour on March 2, in honor of Dr. Seuss to 
        help us realize the goal of having the best readers in the 
        world.
                                 <all>
```
No. 58312.

protests 170243-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
Before the Second Division,

January 13, 1954

No. 57762.

protests 184238-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### John L. Domann et al. *v.*United States,

*371Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, the importer appeared without counsel and discussed his case at great length with the court and Government counsel. However, he was not sworn as a witness, and neither the importer nor the Government introduced any testimony. In the circumstances, therefore, the court was without any satisfactory record upon which to review the questions raised by the protests. There being nothing before the court to rebut the presumption of correctness attaching to the action of the collector, the court was constrained to overrule the protests.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,046-01

EX PARTE ROBERT PADGETT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2013CR6178 IN THE 175 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., not participating.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts fo

indecency with a child by contact and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in each case. He did

not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that histrial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because, among other

things, she did not conduct an independent investigation or discovery and wrongly promised

Applicant he would be sentenced to deferred adjudication. He alleges that these failures caused his
2

plea to be involuntary. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856, 857–58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing,

it shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 
3

Filed: December 16, 2015

Do not publish
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICKEY A BEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICK PALMERTON,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5215RJB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Response to the order to show cause, the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and

recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The court considers plaintiff’s response as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41 (a). This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon .J.

Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 29th day of June, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05215-RJB Document 9 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 1
From: soozy3@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susie Bower

Bucyrus, OH 44820
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THOMAS EUGENE JOSEPH,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5200RBL

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the

affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion, the Court makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

Case 3:06-cr-05200-RBL Document 16 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from June 5, 2006 to

October 10, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from June 5, 2006, to

October 10, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial motions are due no later than August 21, 2006.

No Pre-trial conference shall be set.

DONE this 6th day of June, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ /s/ Colin A. Fieman Gregory Gruber 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05200-RBL Document 16 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,584.

#### In re STUYVESANT BANK.

[See Case No. 12,919.]
No. 57796.

protest 214055-K (New York).

#### Tinsel Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the official record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the presumptively correct classification of the collector, the protest was overruled.
Before the Second Division,

May 4, 1964

No. 68506.

protests 59/4790, 59/4785, and 69/12186 (New York).

#### Kaytee Fabric & Ribbon Co., Inc., and Halperin Shipping Co. *v.*United States,

*335Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon angels similar in use to silk angels and following the principles set forth in *United, States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEDRO RICARDO ANIYEA,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-170MJP

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Greg Gruber ;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Colin Fieman;

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violation of the terms and conditions of

supervision; the defendant has been advised of the allegation and maximum potential sanction if

substantiated; the defendant admits the violation; and the court finds defendant violated conditions

of his supervised release. 

The matter is scheduled for a disposition hearing before the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman:

Date: August 21, 2008

Time: 9:00am

(X) Defendant is released on an appearance bond pending the above scheduled hearing.

( ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

August 11, 2008.

_s/Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.231 Identified Miscellaneous Financial Claims - Part II** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 59305.

protest 253300-K (New York).

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

'Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the photographic cameras in question are valued at $10 or more each, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 9,587.

#### MILLER v. The REBECCA.

[Bee, 151.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

1799.

Hahitime Lien — Suppi.i es — Advances—Bond Taken — Receipt.

The owner of this vessel pledged her to raise money for repairs, wages, &c. Part of the wages were not proved to have been paid, hut. advances, specified in the bond as necessary were made beyond the amount of the bottomry bond. Court retained the suit, and ordered payment from sale of the vessel.

The owner of this vessel [Snow Rebecca] being, as the bond itself sets forth, in want of money to fit her out, to pay wages in advance, and repairs necessary to her going to sea, borrowed three hundred dollars from [Stephen] Miller, the master, and duly executed this deed under hand and seal. To do away its validity, a paper has been produced signed by Miller, acknowledging the receipt of a bottomry bond for three hundred dollars in full for two months of his own wages in *347advance; and of one month’s wages, also in advance, of the mate, fonr seamen, and a boy. It is contended that this money was never paid. But the bond states other purposes and wants, and it has been proved that Miller paid the following sums expressly within the letter of the contract.

For disbursements . $188 00

Butcher’s bill . 46 00

Ship carpenter for repairs.. 10 18

His own wages amounted to. 66 64

Total . $310 82

1

 [Reported by Hon. Thomas Bee. District Judge.]

BY 'I'HHl COURT. Admitting, then, that the other wages mentioned in the bond are still due, yet more has been expended on account of this vessel than is secured by the deed in question. There has been no fraud or collusion, the lien is just and legal, and as no other court can do complete justice by a proceeding in rem, I am of opinion that this suit must be retained and the vessel considered as liable for the amount of this bond.

This case was assimilated to Hopkinson, 163; but there, the bond was given to persons who never advanced a shilling for the vessel’s use. The consignees of the ship, who could not take a bottomry bond payable to themselves, procured one to be made to a third person, who could not have any legal lien, inasmuch as he nad incurred no risque. On account of this collusion, that suit was dismissed.
July 20, 1954

No. 58288

protest 219600-K (A).

#### Zaloom Brothers Co. *v.*United States,

Protest abandoned June 14, 1954. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 64618.

Suit 5016.

#### Davies Turner & Company *v.*United States.

Abstract 63289 reversed June 29, 1960. C.A.D. 744.
# C_2019433EN.01000101.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2018-2019 SESSION

Sittings of 10 to 13 September 2018

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 227, 5.7.2019.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer**
     I, Timothy A. Richardson, the chief executive officer of Micro Linear Corporation (the“Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United StatesCode that, to the best of my knowledge,
     (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2005 (the“Report”), complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
May 18, 2005         /s/ Timothy A. Richardson   Timothy A. Richardson   Chief Executive Officer
No. 61129.

protests 292684-K and 292685-K (New York).

#### John Rumbold *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2015

a0921 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2015

150085

RANDY PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 150085

AGC: 0031

- 13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 3, 2015, the Attorney Grievance Commission was directed to

provide a supplemental response to the complaint for superintending control. On order of

the Court, the supplemental response having been received, the complaint for

superintending control is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.
No. 66105.

Suit 5061.

#### United States *v.*Robert K. Herbst.

C.D. 2201 affirmed July 14, 1961. C.A.D. 781.