alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# IMMC.EESC-2019-03942-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2019-03942-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN

European Economic and Social Committee

European Economic and Social Committee

NAT/777

NAT/777

Authorisations for fishing vessels post Brexit in 2020

Authorisations for fishing vessels post Brexit in 2020

OPINION


  European Economic and Social Committee

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters

  [COM(2019) 398 final – 2019/0187(COD)]

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters

[COM(2019) 398 final – 2019/0187(COD)]

Referral

| Referral | European Parliament, 16/09/2019


  Council of the European Union, 16/09/2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary session | 25 and 26 September 2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 123/0/4 |

Referral

European Parliament, 16/09/2019

European Parliament, 16/09/2019

Council of the European Union, 16/09/2019

Council of the European Union, 16/09/2019

Legal basis

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary session

Adopted at plenary session

25 and 26 September 2019

25 and 26 September 2019

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

546

546

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

123/0/4

123/0/4

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September), by 123 votes to none with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September), by 123 votes to none with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 25 September 2019

Brussels, 25 September 2019

Luca Jahier

  The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________
#### Ralph OYAGUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, C.O. Denton, Capt. Morton, C.O. Sneddon, C.O. Leetz, Dennis Bliden, Lt. Haubert, C.O. D’Angelico, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-299.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 12, 2001.

Ralph Oyague, Comstock, NY, pro se.

Caitlin J. Halligan, Deputy Solicitor General; Michael S. Belohlavek, Deputy Solicitor General, of counsel; Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, on the brief, New York, NY, for appellees.

Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Ralph Oyague appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 *et seq.,*and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 *et seq.*Substantially for the reasons provided in the opinion of the District Court, *see Oyague v. State of N.Y.,*No. 98 Civ. 6721, 2000 WL 1231406 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000), we AFFIRM.
No. 67630.

#### Transamerican Match Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 62/15179 (Tampa).

*276Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff 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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES A BATTLE JR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

TONYA WICK, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C05-2045RSL-MJB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20) and on the

court’s Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed (Dkt. 22). The court has

considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and this file herein. The

plaintiff has not responded to either the motion or the Order to Show Cause.

The court considers plaintiff’s failure to file papers in opposition to the motion to be an

admission that the motion has merit (Western District of Washington Local Rule 7(c)). Furthermore,

it appears from the documents in the file that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is well founded in fact

and law. 

This motion was assigned by the Chief Judge to the undersigned Judge to assist Magistrate

Judge Benton, who is on temporary sick leave. 

Case 2:05-cv-02045-RSL-MJB Document 23 Filed 12/19/06 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 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

Therefore, it is now ORDERED that

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record via the CM/ECF system and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address

via the U.S. Mail.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2006. 

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02045-RSL-MJB Document 23 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Vicki Arnott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Katie Gold Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Katie Gold Corp.



Date:  March 24, 2006



/s/ Vicki Arnott

___________________________

Vicki Arnott

Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000021230-NOV-201207:58 AM
Before the Second Division,

October 6, 1955

No. 59325.

protest 216882-K (New York).

#### Balex Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*263Opinion by

La whence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of zinc in sheets, not coated or plated with nickel, or other metal, or gold, silver, or platinum, or any solutions; that said ^inc sheets are articles of which metal is the component material of chief value, other than ores, concentrates, or crude metal; that the merchandise was imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; and that there had been compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra,*requiring submission of proof of such use in remanufacture by melting. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*as amended by Public Law 66, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 1

(Proposed)

(James Robert Jackson; CR06-156RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

 JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES ROBERT JACKSON,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-156RSM

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties, the

records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. Based on the facts set forth in the parties stipulated motion, the Court finds

that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more

speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

Case 2:06-cr-00156-RSM Document 20 Filed 06/23/06 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 2

(Proposed)

(James Robert Jackson; CR06-156RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date for James Jackson is

extended from July 10, 2006, to September 5, 2006. Pretrial motions shall be filed on

or before August 3, 2006.

DONE this 23rd day of June 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney 

WSBA No. 35304

Attorney for James Jackson

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

nancy_tenney@fd.org

Case 2:06-cr-00156-RSM Document 20 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate

Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished

memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court

of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 RODNEY BOWE,

3 Petitioner/Counterrespondent-Appellee,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-37280

5 SINA AURELIA PLEASANT

6 SOUL-BOWE,

7 Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellant.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

9 Debra Ramirez, District Judge

10 L. Helen Bennett, P.C.

11 L. Helen Bennett

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Walz and Associates

15 Jerry A. Walz

16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 VANZI, Chief Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 

6 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 

9 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 

10 

11 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
[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).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Sedimentologyand paleogeographic significance of six fluvial sandstone bodies in the MaroonFormation, Eagle Basin, northwest Colorado**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1787-A-C
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959301
 
August 2, 2018
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

ORDER 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SHING-TING YAO,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ, et al.,

Respondents.

CASE NO. C05-822-MJP-MAT

ORDER

The parties having so stipulated (Dkt. #8), Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #7) is

hereby re-noted for consideration July 22, 2005; any reply by Respondents is due no later than

July 21, 2005.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00822-MJP Document 9 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 1
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

1

The court construed Plaintiffs’ first motion as a request for an ex parte temporary restraining

order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) given that Plaintiffs filed their motion without notice to the

Defendants.

ORDER – 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

EDWARD WILSON and VIRGINIA

WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. C06-101JLR 

 ORDER

The court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ second “Emergency Motion for Preliminary and

Permanent Injunction . . .” (Dkt. # 8) which has been served on Defendants. The local rules

do not provide for any such “emergency” motion and thus, the court construes Plaintiffs’ most

recent filing as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and notes the motion for this court’s

consideration on March 24, 2006.1

 Defendants’ opposition is due no later than Monday,

March 20, 2006. Plaintiffs must file their reply no later than the noting date of March 24,

2006. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(d). 

Case 2:06-cv-00101-JLR Document 12 Filed 03/07/06 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

2

The court requested briefing on the doctrine of res judicata after Plaintiffs brought to the

court’s attention a prior ruling by the King County Superior Court that involved the same claim and

the same parties. 

ORDER – 2 

The court has also received Plaintiffs’ response to the court’s order of January 30,

2006 in which the court required Plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be

dismissed on res judicata grounds (Dkt. # 4).2

 In their submission, Plaintiffs argue that the

court should not dismiss their case because the state court ruling was not based “on [the]

Merits of Irrefragable [sic] Facts . . . .” Pls.’ Resp. at 1. Plaintiffs make no further argument

other than to attach the dismissal order by Judge Heavey in King County Superior Court, in

which he dismissed Plaintiffs’ suit on grounds that the court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. As a general matter, a state court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds – as

opposed to a decision on the merits – does not carry preclusive effect over this court’s rulings. 

At least for purposes of the court’s show cause order, the court concludes that a sua sponte

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims is not warranted at this time. The parties are free to raise the

issue of res judicata in the future.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00101-JLR Document 12 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FDIC published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 29, 2023, concerning a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion. The document contained incorrect dates.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra A. Decker, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, 202-898-8748.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 29, 2023, 88 FR 67289, in FR Doc. 2023-21434, on Page 67289, correct the                     **DATES**                     caption to read:                

# DATES:

Thursday, November 2, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Dated at Washington, DC, on October 3, 2023.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-22355 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Steven Moody Ph.D v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole Division, et

al

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00316

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 00034

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellant , acting pro se, has filed a motion “R equesting for Loaner of Courts Records , and Trial Court’s Reporter’s Records, and Transcript’s Documentation.” To the extent that appellant requests a loan of origi nal court records, the motion is denied. C onsidering the motion as instead requesting copies of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, the motion is granted with respect

to the clerk’s record. A lthough a clerk’s record has been filed, a reporter’s record has not been

filed and the court reporter has averred that a reporter’s record was not taken.

Accordingly, we direct the trial court clerk to send a copy of the clerk’s record to appellant

within 7 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

________ Acting individually

Date: ___ September 21, 2021

___
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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

REQUEST AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL/RODGERS 

(CR05-5828FDB) - 1

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5828FDB

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. ) REQUEST AND ORDER

) FOR DISMISSAL

WILLIAM C. RODGERS, )

)

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

Comes now, the United States of America, by and through John McKay, United

States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, Mark Bartlett, First Assistant

United States for said District, and Andrew C. Friedman, Assistant United States

Attorney for said District, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), and asks

that the Court dismiss the charges brought in this case against William C. Rodgers.

Following his indictment on December 7, 2005, Rodgers was arrested in Arizona

on the charges in this case. Rodgers committed suicide while in custody and prior to

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 20 Filed 05/19/06 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

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

REQUEST AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL/RODGERS 

(CR05-5828FDB) - 2

being transported to the Western District of Washington. As a result, the charges against

Rodgers should be dismissed.

DATED this eighteenth day of May, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN McKAY

United States Attorney

s/Mark Bartlett 

MARK BARTLETT

First Assistant United States Attorney

s/Andrew C. Friedman 

ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101

Telephone: (206) 553-2277

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: Andrew.Friedman@usdoj.gov

Mark.Bartlett@usdoj.gov

Leave of the Court is granted for the filing of the foregoing dismissal and the

charges against William C. Rodgers in the Superseding Indictment are hereby

DISMISSED.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 20 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 293 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 293

    Expressing the sense of the Senate that Nadia Dabbagh should be 
           returned home to her mother, Ms. Maureen Dabbagh.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              October 8 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

  Mr. Robb (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Feinstein) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                          on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the Senate that Nadia Dabbagh should be 
           returned home to her mother, Ms. Maureen Dabbagh.

Whereas Mr. Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh and Mrs. Maureen Dabbagh had a daughter, 
        Nadia Dabbagh, in 1990;
Whereas Maureen Dabbagh and Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh were divorced in February 
        1992;
Whereas in 1993, Nadia was abducted by her father;
Whereas Mohamad Dabbagh later fled the country with Nadia;
Whereas the governments of Syria and the United States have granted child 
        custody to Maureen Dabbagh and both have issued arrest warrants for 
        Mohamad Dabbagh;
Whereas Mohamad Dabbagh has escaped to Saudi Arabia;
Whereas the United States Department of State believes Nadia now resides in 
        Syria;
Whereas Maureen Dabbagh, with the assistance of missing children organizations, 
        has been unable to reunite with her daughter;
Whereas the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
        Interpol have been unsuccessful in their attempts to bring Nadia back to 
        the United States;
Whereas Maureen Dabbagh has not seen her daughter in over five years; and
Whereas it will take the continued effort and pressure on the part of Syrian 
        officials to bring this case to a successful conclusion: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Governments 
of the United States and Syria immediately locate Nadia and deliver her 
safely to her mother.
                                 <all>
```