alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00213

- CV

JAMES ARTHUR COOK, I I, MIA NICHOLE

COOK, KRISTAL ALBERT A COOK, GREGORY

COOK, CHRISTOPHER CH ARLES COOK AND

JAMES ARTHUR COOK, JR.

, Appellant s

v.

BETTY LEWIS AND THE ESTATE OF JAMES

ARTHUR COOK, DECEASE D

, Appellee s

From the County Court at Law No

. 1

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 0494

- PR1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants have filed a “Moti on to Withdraw Notice of Appeal.” W e construe

Appellants’ motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1). Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which

it would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.Cook v. Lewis Page 2 REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed August 2, 2017

[CV06]
No. 64762.

#### International Packers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33499 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mutton similar in all material respects to the beef the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), except that the merchandise here involved is mutton, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Mondee Stracener, Appellant

No. 06-14-00079-CV v.

Doug Stracener, Bernice L. Stracener and 

Joey Keith Stracener, Appellees

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 135-06). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Mondee Stracener, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 24, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0272

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM042AD

ALS 2.1, I11 --- 2/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2019093EN.01004002.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA

(Case T-348/16 OP) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Minatran project - Eligible costs - Compensation - Judgment by default - Application to have a judgment set aside))

(2019/C 93/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents, and E. Kourakis and P. Dikaiou, lawyers)

Re:

Application by ERCEA to set aside the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16, not published, EU:T:2017:268).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16);

| 2. | Declares that the claim formulated in debit note No 3241606289 of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 26 May 2016 for the return by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis of part of the subsidy it received for the Minatran project, amounting to EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded up to an amount of EUR 233 611,75 and that the latter amount corresponds to eligible costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the claim formulated in debit note No 3241606289 of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 26 May 2016 for the return by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis of part of the subsidy it received for the Minatran project, amounting to EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded up to an amount of EUR 233 611,75 and that the latter amount corresponds to eligible costs;

| 3. | Dismisses the action brought by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis and the application filed by ERCEA as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action brought by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis and the application filed by ERCEA as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Cases T-348/16 and T-348/16 OP; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Cases T-348/16 and T-348/16 OP;

| 5. | Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Case T-348/16 OP-R. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Case T-348/16 OP-R.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---
# C_2016191EN.01005202.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/52

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO

(Case F-16/16)

(2016/C 191/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 24/07/2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the defendant’s 2015 promotion procedure by not including the name of the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise issued 24/07/2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 24/07/2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the defendant’s 2015 promotion procedure by not including the name of the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise issued 24/07/2015;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the procedural costs.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John D. Hellmann, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended July 3, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations 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) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of July 3, 2004, based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 16, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7637
HENRY GORHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; EDWARD C. MORRIS, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Director, Kentucky Dep artment of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Warden, Kentucky Department of Corrections; JOE DOE, Director,District of Columbia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Warden, District of Columbia Department of Corrections; ODIE WASHINGTON, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections; KEITH COOPER, Warden, Illinois Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE(S), Various Corrections Staff, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-919) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Gorham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant, an inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gorham v. Angelone , No. CA-97-919 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016251EN.01005201.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/52

---

Action brought on 18 May 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-25/16)

(2016/C 251/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure and an application for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dmitry Beinus, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended October 1, 2005; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 of operations 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 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 15, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MAURICE ALLEN GILBERT,

Debtor.

______________________________ MAURICE ALLEN GILBERT,

Appellant,

v. ROD DANIELSON, Chapter 13 Trustee,

Appellee. No. 16

- 55253

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv
- 01675

- DOC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Maurice Allen Gilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s order

* 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

DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55253

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his chapter 13 bankruptcy
petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 158(d) , 1291. W e review de
novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply
the same standard of review appl ied by the district court. In re AFI Holding, Inc. , 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not ab use its discretion in dismissing Gilbert’s
chapter 13 petition because Gilbert failed to commence making payments under his
chapter 13 plan

. See 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) (“[D]ebtor shall commence making
payments not later than 30 days after the date of the filing of the plan

. . . . ” ); id.
§ 1307(c)(4) (a bankruptcy court may dismiss a case for “failure to commence
making timely payments under section 1326 .”); see also Leavitt v. Soto (In re
Leavitt) , 171 F.3d 1219, 1222

- 23 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating standard of review ).
Contrary to Gilbert’s contention , the bankruptcy court properly exercised
jurisdiction over proceedings related to Gilbert’s chapter 13 petition prior to this

court issuing its mandate in appeal No. 15

- 55260

. See Sherman v. SEC (In re
Sherman) , 491 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007) (a notice of appeal typically divests a
bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal but
the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to implement or enforce the order and may3 16

- 55253

exercise ju risdiction over related proceedings).
We reject as without merit Wade’s contentions that the bankruptcy court
violated due process.

Gilbert’s motion to take judicial notice, filed June 28, 2016, is denied as

moot.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Bio Solutions  Manufacturing,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A2  for the fiscal year ended  October 31, 2004,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, David S. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Dated: February 03, 2006      By:  /s/ David S. Bennett
                                ---------------------------------
                                David S. Bennett
                                Chief Executive Officer




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Bio  Solutions  Manufacturing,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by Bio
Solutions  Manufacturing,  Inc.  and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016326EN.01003601.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/36

---

Action brought on 11 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-35/16)

(2016/C 326/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to classify the applicant in a grade which would, in her view, correspond to her professional experience.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 12.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Alex Mandl, Chief Executive Officer of Gemplus International S.A., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Gemplus International S.A.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation;and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information, and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
 

 

Date: June 29, 2005         /s/ Alex Mandl         Alex Mandl    Chief Executive Officer