alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012200EN.01001001.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA) v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg

(Case C-251/12)

2012/C 200/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA)

Applicants:

Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | How should the words ‘obligation ... for the benefit of a debtor’ in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How should the words ‘obligation ... for the benefit of a debtor’ in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted?

1

| 2. | Must those words be interpreted as including a payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor at the latter’s request, in the case where the party which carried out that payment obligation on behalf and for the benefit of the insolvent debtor did so while unaware of the existence of insolvency proceedings which had been opened against the debtor in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must those words be interpreted as including a payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor at the latter’s request, in the case where the party which carried out that payment obligation on behalf and for the benefit of the insolvent debtor did so while unaware of the existence of insolvency proceedings which had been opened against the debtor in another Member State?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

1

---
No. 65766.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 60/16423 (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### David MOSS v. WINWARD HOSPITAL.

No. 98-C-2812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Winward Hospital; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Office of Workers Comp., Dist. 2, *636No. 97-00883; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA98-0401.

Denied.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 28, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00137

- CV

IN RE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on April 28, 2021

.

_____________________________ Lor i I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of April, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI23861 , styled Alpi za r v. Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company of

America , pending in the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales

presiding.
# Third D istrict Court of Ap peal
State of F lorida
Opinion filed March 20, 2024

. Not final until disposition of t imely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22 -21 19 Lower Tribunal No. F95 -37 823

________________


### The State of Florida , Appellant,

vs. 

### David W hitehead , Appellee.

An Appeal f rom the C ircuit C ourt f or Miami -D ade C ounty, Daryl E. Trawick , Judge. Ashley M oody, A ttorney G eneral, a nd Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Law Offices of Ron M. Kleiner, Esq., and Ron M. Kleiner , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ , MILLER a nd GORDO, JJ.
PER CUR IAM.
Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Paul Bailey, the chief financial officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material 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 included in 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that 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 quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
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 on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant'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 most recent 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 or
operation of internal controls 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's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: August 11, 2003


_______________________
/S/ PAUL BAILEY
PAUL BAILEY
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
# ARTICLES OF
AMENDMENTTO THE

# ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

Pursuant to the provisions
of the Colorado Business Corporation Act, the undersigned corporation adopts the
following Articles of Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:

FIRST:  The name of the
corporation is easyQual.com, Inc.

SECOND: The following
amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted on April 6, 2001, as
prescribed by the Colorado Business Corporation Act. Such amendment was adopted
by a vote of the shareholders. The number of shares voted for the amendment was
sufficient for approval.

RESOLVED:  The name of the
corporation is: Entrust Financial Services, Inc.

THIRD:  The manner, if not
set  forth  in such  amendment,  in which  any  exchange,  reclassification,  or
cancellation  of issued shares  provided for in the amendment shall be effected,
is as follows: None

This amendment is effective
immediately.

easyQual.com, Inc.
       April 6, 2001
             
             
             
             
             
By ///Signed///
             
             
             
             
             
        
             
             Its
President
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8890]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)Subcommittee 
Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Revised

    The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena 
scheduled for May 23-24, 2007 has been rescheduled to May 24-25, 2007 
at 8:30 a.m. in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of portions that may be closed to discuss General Electric 
proprietary information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
    The Subcommittee will review the staff evaluation of the MELLLA+, 
GE Methods, and GE DSS-CD Topical Reports. The Subcommittee will gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full 
Committee.
    Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on 
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19553). All other items pertaining to 
this meeting remain the same as previously published.
    For Further Information Contact: Mr. Ralph Caruso, Senior Staff 
Engineer (telephone 301-415-8065 or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8efcf6edcee0fceda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2c0cad1f2dcc0d19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>) between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET).

    Dated: May 3, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-8890 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6530** 

DERRICK Q. MCFADDEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MIKE BALL, Superintendent; DIRECTOR ROBERT C. LEWIS, NCDOC , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- h c - 02218

- FL )

Submi t ted : May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Derrick Q. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Q. McFadde n seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice because he failed to comply with the court’s order to pay the required filing fee . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court d enies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mi ller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss t he appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D
No. 96-5716.

#### Coyle *v.*Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.12


                                    MGM GROUP
                             2505 LAKE JACKSON CIR.
                                   ORLANDO FL


Michael T. Williams, Esq.
Williams Law Group
2503 W. Gardner Ct.
Tampa FL 33611

Re: Questions concerning SSI

As you know, SSI has retained MGM Group as financial advisor to the SSI board in
connection with a contemplated merger transaction with First Enterprise Service
Group, Inc. As financial advisor to the board of SSI, we have agreed to advise
SSI's board as to whether MGM believes the merger will accomplish SSI's
objectives.

We have the following questions about the transaction:

o    How does your process differ from most public shell/reverse merger
     transactions?

o    Does your company have stockholders with fully free trading stock that they
     can sell immediately after the merger closes?

o    What information is furnished to shareholders of SSI?

o    Are there alternatives to the structure you utilize?

o    Will the SEC's concerns about shell merger transactions make your process
     more difficult?

     o    In that connection, we understand that the SEC permits shell merger
          transactions under Rule 419. Is there any difference between your
          transaction structure and a transaction done under Rule 419?

We look forward to your prompt response.


                                          Sincerely,



                                          Gerhard Melnyk
                                          MGM Group
No. 94-9848.

No. 96-594.

No. 96-6581.

#### Gresham *v.*Transportation Communications International Union et al., Mudie *v.*Miltland Raleigh-Durham, Lurie *v.*Caesar’s Tahoe, Inc., et al.,

516 U. S. 860;

519 U. S. 1041; and

519 U. S. 1045. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:17-cv-03111-PJM)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2012287EN.01002403.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/24

---

Action brought on 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-333/12)

2012/C 287/46

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, C. Vrignon and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

1

| — | impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to comply with the obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2007/65, at a daily rate of EUR 112 190,40 and payable from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to comply with the obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2007/65, at a daily rate of EUR 112 190,40 and payable from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 19 December 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 332, p. 27.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1377 

To require the Corps of Engineers to take into account all available hydrologic 

data in conducting Missouri River basin operations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2011 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Corps of Engineers to take into account 

all available hydrologic data in conducting Missouri River 

basin operations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF ALL AVAILABLE HYDRO4 LOGIC DATA. 

5 Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this 

6 Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

7 of Engineers, shall take into account all available hydro8 logic data in conducting Missouri River basin operations. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
H 

# E StIfOOt T 

### ° CHEMiCALS, LLC 

### x
E-Sperse RS-1616 lot 11309101 GPC Results
<500 500-1000 >1000 Total area <1000 

### Area 496255 5428218 15908229 21832702 5924473 % area 2.273% 24.863% 72.864% 100.000% 27.14% 12/6/2013

Mw 1277 Mn 1093 PDI 1.1682

<500 500-1000 >1000 Total wt A <1000 Wt area 8.82 208.03 1060.24 1277.10 216.86 % wt 0.69% 16.29% 83.02% 100.00% 16.98%
Weight Percent Distribution 

# ~ 

# I 

# i
I L.O
x 2.0

~ Q N 1.5 c 0 a 0 1.0

~ a t 0.5

~ d 

## 3 0.0 -- --------- — — - 0 <500 -- — - -- 500-1000
---- -- — -- -- — -- ---- 

### ~ Es >1000

s s p

- ---- - ------- Ra;.

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 i Time (min) f



### RS-1616 Page 1
#### Robert J. THIEL; Joyce K. Thiel, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Mark BUCHMAN; et al., in their individual capacities, Defendants—Appellees,

No. 04-57165.

D.C. No. CV-04-07977-R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Robert J. Thiel, Arroyo Grande, CA, pro se.

Joyce K. Thiel, Arroyo Grande, CA, pro se.

Girard Fisher, Daniel P. Barer, Poliak, Vida *&*Fisher, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Robert J. Thiel and his wife Joyce K. Thiel, appeal pro se the district court’s

judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Thiels sought damages and a temporary and permanent injunction following allegations that various individuals employed by the San Luis Obispo Office of Education, the Lucia Mar Unified School District, and the California Department of Education, denied their disabled son a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether exhaustion is required under the IDEA is a question of law that we review de novo. *Witte v. Clark County Sch. Dist.,*197 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action for failing to exhaust administrative remedies because the record reflects that they made, and then withdrew, their request for an administrative due process hearing. *See Robb v. Bethel School Dist. #403,*308 F.3d 1047, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2002) (affirming dismissal of section 1983 action predicated on a violation of IDEA where plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies).

We find unpersuasive appellants’ contention that exhausting administrative remedies is not required when suing state officials in their individual capacities, because the IDEA categorically requires exhaustion before commencing a federal action. *See*20 U.S.C. § 1415(1).

We find unpersuasive appellants’ contention that exhaustion was unnecessary because their constitutional claims could not be properly adjudicated in an administrative hearing, because the parties’ disagreement over the propriety of “masking” ther*838apy possibly could have been redressed during the administrative process. *See Robb,*308 F.3d at 1050 (requiring exhaustion when “the plaintiff has alleged injuries that could be redressed to any degree by the IDEA’S administrative procedures and remedies”).

Appellants’ remaining contentions lack merit.

We grant appellees’ motion to strike the three documents included in appellants’ excerpts of record that were not admitted before the district court. *See Lowry v. Barnhart,*329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.