alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 25, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00109

- CR

Ex parte Jorge Gutierrez

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURI SDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal be

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court; and it appearing that the appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision

be certif ied below for observance.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Transgene S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

|Date: June 14, 2004 |  | By: | /s/JEAN-FRANÇOIS CARMIERName: Jean-François Carmier
Title:Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 14, 2004 |  | By: | /s/PHILIPPE PONCETName: Philippe Poncet
Title:Chief Financial Officer            

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1


                     WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     I, Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of
WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a)     the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
             quarter ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the
             requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
             Act of 1934; and

     (b)     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
             all material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.



Date:   October 29, 2003
                                    /s/ Donald R. Mayer
                                   _________________________________________
                                   Donald R. Mayer
                                   Principal Executive and Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 02/72-0611] 

Notice is hereby given that Quad Venture Partners SBIC, L.P., 650 Fifth Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10019, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the Licensee's General Partner's continued role in managing the Licensee's assets after the sale of such assets to a buyer group, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730(a), self-deal which constitutes Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules. Quad Ventures SBIC, Inc., the General Partner of the Licensee, proposes to continue managing the Licensee's assets, which will be acquired by a group of institutional buyers (“Buyer Group”). 

The management arrangement is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a) of the Regulations because the Licensee's mangers will benefit from their continued management role after the sale of the portfolio to the Buyer Group. Therefore, this management arrangement constitutes a conflict of interest which requires prior SBA's approval. 

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within 15 days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: May 8, 2007. 

Jaime Guzman-Fournier, 

Associate Administrator for Investment. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9582 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
designate Jo N. Hopper as the appellee/cross-appellant. 

MOLLY F 

JUSTICE 

Pig" cs4%. .

IS 

Order entered October 11, 2012 

In The 

Court of Zfppealls 

ji iftb 31Bititritt of 25exati at Oattao 

No. 05-12-01247-CV 

IN RE: ESTATE OF MAX D. HOPPER, DECEASED 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-3238-3 

ORDER 

The Court has before it Jo N. Hopper's October 9, 2012 unopposed motion to realign 

parties on appeal. The Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of this Court to 

designate Laura S. Wassmer and Stephen B. Hopper as the appellants in this appeal, and to
No. 96-7369.

#### May *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013038EN.01001503.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/15

---

Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-572/12)

2013/C 38/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, E. Manhaeve, A. Tokár, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;

1

| — | in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case;

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 August 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76.

1

---
2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009Earnings:Income before income taxes
    
    
    132,588
    
    
    
    125,752
    
    
    
    158,998
    
    
    
    163,956
    
    
    
    175,376Plus: fixed charges per below
    
    
    26,547
    
    
    
    32,399
    
    
    
    36,657
    
    
    
    37,887
    
    
    
    52,798Less: capitalized interest per below
    
    
    432
    
    
    
    654
    
    
    
    206
    
    
    
    29
    
    
    
    Plus: current period amortization of interest
capitalized in prior periods
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    30
    
    
    
    39
    
    
    
    39
    
    
    
    39Total earnings
    
    $
    158,724
    
    
    $
    157,527
    
    
    $
    195,488
    
    
    $
    201,853
    
    
    $
    228,213Fixed chargesInterest expense
    
    $
    23,489
    
    
    $
    28,970
    
    
    $
    33,430
    
    
    $
    35,527
    
    
    $
    49,161Capitalized interest
    
    
    432
    
    
    
    654
    
    
    
    206
    
    
    
    29
    
    
    
    Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    2,626
    
    
    
    2,775
    
    
    
    3,021
    
    
    
    2,331
    
    
    
    3,637Total fixed charges
    
    $
    26,547
    
    
    $
    32,399
    
    
    $
    36,657
    
    
    $
    37,887
    
    
    $
    52,798Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.0
    
    
    
    4.9
    
    
    
    5.3
    
    
    
    5.3
    
    
    
    4.3
H. Con. Res. 379 Agreed to June 26, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of 

Thursday, June 26, 2008, or Friday, June 27, 2008, on a motion 

offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 

8, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 

2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that 

when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 

June 26, 2008, through Friday, July 4, 2008, on a motion offered 

pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or 

his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, 

July 7, 2008, or such other time on that day as may be specified 

in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the 

Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 

House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place 
H. Con. Res. 379—2 

and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public 

interest shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1721 

AN ACT 

To amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to extend 

the eligibility period for supplemental security income 

benefits for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants, and for other purposes. 
2 

†S 1721 ES

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SSI Extension for El5 derly and Disabled Refugees Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY PERIOD FOR SSI BENE7 FITS FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a)(2)(M) of the Per9 sonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

10 Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(M)) is amended— 

11 (1) in clause (i)(I), by striking ‘‘fiscal years 

12 2009 through 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 

13 2009 through 2012’’; and 

14 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2009 

15 through 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2009 

16 through 2012’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

18 402(a)(2)(M) of such Act is amended, in the subpara19 graph heading, by striking ‘‘THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2011’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2011. 

22 SEC. 3. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISA PETITION FEE. 

23 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR FEE.—Section 204(a)(1)(I) 

24 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
3 

†S 1721 ES

1 1154(a)(1)(I)) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(iv) Each petition filed under this subparagraph 

4 shall include a petition fee in the amount of $30.’’. 

5 (b) DEPOSIT OF FEE.—All fees collected pursuant to 

6 clause (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(I) of the Immigration and 

7 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)), as added by 

8 subsection (a), shall not be available for obligation and 

9 shall be deposited, in their entirety, in the general fund 

10 of the Treasury. 

11 (c) SUNSET OF FEES.—The fees collected pursuant 

12 to clause (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(I) of the Immigration 

13 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)), as added 

14 by subsection (a), shall apply only to petitions filed before 

15 October 1, 2013. 

16 SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

17 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

18 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

19 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

20 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

21 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

22 by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, pro-
4 

†S 1721 ES

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the Senate October 17, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1721 

AN ACT 

To amend section 402 of the Personal Responsigrants, and for other purposes. asylees, and certain other humanitarian immi- plemental security income benefits for refugees, of 1996 to extend the eligibility period for sup- bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ROSHA CHARLES WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 22 WM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2016, the Petition for Assumption of 

Jurisdiction and Consolidation is DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 

(Pa. 2010) (providing that hybrid representation is not permitted). The Prothonotary is 

DIRECTED to forward the filing to counsel of record.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   402
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,116)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,842
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,716
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
No. 96-7776.

No. 96-7786.

#### Jarrett *v.*United States; and Glover *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 97 F. 3d 234.
#### Deodat Persaud et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[699 NYS2d 481]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated July 1, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and Police Officer Francis Knowles for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The defendant Carmela E. Mero left her 19-year-old daughter, the defendant Maithe Mero, sitting in the passenger seat of her car, which was parked in a no-standing zone. Maithe Mero did not have a driver’s license and did not know how to drive. The defendant Police Officer Francis Knowles saw the car and waved tó Maithe Mero to move it. According to Maithe Mero, the officer “kept waving” at her to move, so she felt compelled to slip into the driver’s seat, start the engine, and move the car. She lost control, drove up onto the sidewalk, and injured the plaintiff Deodat Persaud.

The alleged liability of the municipal defendants is predicated upon the misfeasance of the defendant police officer in directing Maithe Mero to move without inquiring as to whether she was licensed to drive. Once the police officer undertook to direct her to move the car, he was obligated to do so with due care *(see, Parvi v City of Kingston,*41 NY2d 553). Accordingly, the plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate a special relationship *(see, Bernardine v City of New York,*294 NY 361; *cf., Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp.,*90 NY2d 966).

*221Liability can be imposed upon a police officer for negligently directing a citizen to move a vehicle (see, *Kovit v Estate of Hallums,*261 AD2d 442; *Maloney v Scarfone, 25*AD2d 630). In this case, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an expert, stating that the defendant police officer deviated from standard police practice in directing a person sitting in the passenger seat to move the car, without inquiring as to whether she was licensed to drive. That affidavit established that there was an issue of fact which precluded granting summary judgment *(see, Peckman v Mutual Life Ins. Co.,*125 AD2d 244).

The respondents’ remaining contention is without merit *(see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Media invited to attend DLA Aviation change of command ceremony

By DLA Aviation Public Affairs Office

                RIchmond, Va.  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviationchange of commandPeople and Culture