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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 213 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 

of valor during the Korean War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2011 

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal 

of Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the 

United States Army for acts of valor during the Korean 

War. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD 

4 OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO EMIL KAPAUN FOR 

5 ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE KOREAN WAR. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding the time lim7 itations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

8 Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 213 IS

1 awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 

2 Armed Forces, the President is authorized and requested 

3 to award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 

4 3741 of such title to Emil Kapaun for the acts of valor 

5 during the Korean War described in subsection (b). 

6 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

7 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of then Cap8 tain Emil Kapaun as a member of the 8th Cavalry Regi9 ment during the Battle of Unsan on November 1 and 2, 

10 1950, and while a prisoner of war until his death on May 

11 23, 1951, during the Korean War. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed December 8, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-03-00129-CV

__________

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., Appellant

V.

ROBERT HUTCHINSON AND JOYCE HUTCHINSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Nolan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18,215

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellees have filed in this court a motion to dismiss this appeal, which was suspended 

in 2003 due to appellant’s bankruptcy. Appellees state in their motion that “[t]he parties have 

reached an agreement and have settled and compromised their differences in the suit.” Appellant 

has notified this court that it does not oppose the motion to dismiss. Therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

December 8, 2011 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
# C_2015046EN.01001301.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) v European Commission

(Case C-467/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Rights of the defence - Content of the statement of objections - Calculation of the amount of the fine - 2006 guidelines for the calculation of fines - Point 18 - Total value of sales of goods or services in relation to the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time period - Reduction of the amount of the fine))

(2015/C 046/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (represented by: P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

M. DENISE TOLLIVER

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellant,

v.

QLARANT QUALITY SOLUTIONS, INC., RONALD G. FORSYTHE, JR., and DEBORAH
KELLER

,

Defendant s Below

, Appellee s

. § § No. 458 , 2022 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. K21

- 06

- 040 § § § § § § §

Submitted: March 24 , 2023 Decided: May 19 , 2023

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

O RDER

U pon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, 1 we conclude

that the Superior Court’s November 21, 2022 opinion dismissing the complaint and

December 12, 2022 order denying the untimely motion for reconsideration should

be affirmed. Even assuming that responses to her complaint were due by July 19

,

2021 as Tolliver contends, she has not shown that the Superior Court abused its

1 The Court has not considered documents submitted by the plaintiff below

- appellant M. Denise Toll i ver after briefing was complete. The documents were not available to the Superior Court in the first instance and are outside of the record on appeal. Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily

, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del.1997) (stating that “[i]t is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court” and striking materials from appendix that were outside of record on appeal).2

discretion i n denying her motion for default judgment. The defendants below

appellees timely removed the action to the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware on July 2 1 , 202 1 and obtained an extension from the district

court to file their response to the complaint. Within two days of the docketing of the

district court’ s opinion and order remanding the matter in the Superior Court, the

defendants filed a proposed briefing schedule for renewal of the motion to dismiss

they had filed in the district court. Given t hese circumstances and the strong policy

favoring a decisio n on the merits over entry of default judgment, the Superior Court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Tolliver’s motion for default judgment. Nor

did the Superior Court err in concluding that Tolliver’s complaint failed to establish

that defendant be low

- appellee Deborah Keller was subject to personal jurisdiction

in Delaware 2 and failed to state a claim against defendant

- below appellee QLarant

Quality Solutions, Inc

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

2 Tolliver does not challenge the Superior Court’s holding that defendant below

- appellee Ronald G. Forsythe, Jr. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware.
KIMBERLY HARTFIELD

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5229

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed May 10, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas Dannheisser , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant ; Kimberly Hartfield, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
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

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of USIP.Com,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Kathy  Christopher,
Controller  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Kathy Christopher
Kathy Christopher
Controller, USIP.Com, Inc.

Mary 12, 2005


USIP.Com,  Inc. does not have a "Chief Financial  Officer," Kathy Christopher is
the principal financial and accounting officer.












                                  END OF FILING
# C_2013207EN.01001301.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

(Case C-224/13)

2013/C 207/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of Articles 70, 71 and 72 of the [Italian] Criminal Procedure Code in so far as they require criminal proceedings to be stayed indefinitely and, in addition, regular expert assessments to be carried out in respect of the defendant, once it has been ascertained that that defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of Articles 70, 71 and 72 of the [Italian] Criminal Procedure Code in so far as they require criminal proceedings to be stayed indefinitely and, in addition, regular expert assessments to be carried out in respect of the defendant, once it has been ascertained that that defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve?

| 2. | On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of point (3) of the first paragraph of Article 159 of the Criminal Code in so far as it requires the limitation period to be prolonged indefinitely (extended on a six-month basis under Article 72 of that Code) in the event that a defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of point (3) of the first paragraph of Article 159 of the Criminal Code in so far as it requires the limitation period to be prolonged indefinitely (extended on a six-month basis under Article 72 of that Code) in the event that a defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve?

---
Exhibit 10.2 to AVAX Tecnologies, Inc. Form 8-k/A dated December 1, 2007







Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT


In accordance
with paragraph 11.0 of the Employment Agreement entered into on the 1st day of December, 2007, by and between
AVAX Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business at 2000 Hamilton Street, Suite 204, Philadelphia, PA (the “Company”), and Francois
Martelet, M.D. (“Employee”), the parties hereby agree to delete paragraph 3.4 of subject
agreement and replace it as follows:


 





	
             
  	
            3.4
 	
            Equity Compensation. As additional compensation for services rendered, the Company shall grant to the Employee the right and option to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock as set forth below in this Section 3.4 and in the future may grant additional equity to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock to the Employee in accordance with the terms of the Company’s equity plan then in effect.
 






 


(a)  The Company shall grant to the Employee (i) stock options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and standard form stock option agreement, plus (ii) inducement stock options to purchase 6,130,288 shares of common stock of the Company, which inducement stock options are granted outside the Plan, but otherwise will be on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as the foregoing Plan options (“Equity Grant A”). The stock options shall be incentive stock options to the extent allowed pursuant to Section 422 of the Code and the remainder of the stock options shall be non-qualified stock options. The stock options shall be granted on the Commencement Date with an exercise price equal to the fair market value
of the common stock on the last business day prior to the Commencement Date, and shall vest in four equal annual installments over the four (4) years following the Commencement Date and, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, subject to such other terms and conditions as set forth in the Company’s standard form of option agreement. The inducement stock options shall be represented by a stock option agreement that includes all material terms of the Plan and otherwise conforms to the standard form of stock option agreement under the Plan.


 

 


This Amendment shall be effective as of the  1st  day of December, 2007, and is entered into with the intent to be legally bound, by the authorized representatives of:


 


 





	
            AVAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            EMPLOYEE
 
	
            
 /s/ 
 	
            John K.A. Prendergast
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            
 /s/ 
 	
            Francois Martelet, M.D.
 
	
            Name:
 	
            John K.A. Prendergast, Ph.D.
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            Francois Martelet, M.D.
 
	
            Title:
 	
            Chairman of the Board of Directors
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**









I,
      Michael R. Cox, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial
      Officer of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. certify that (i) the Annual Report on
      Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods
      set forth therein.








/s/ Michael
                R. Cox
              Michael
                R. Cox
              Vice
                President, Finance and Administration
              and
                Chief Financial Officer
              Date:  December
                27, 2007
No. 76-708.

#### Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. *v.*Videfreeze Corp. et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to strike portion of petition for certiorari and other relief denied. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013189EN.01001302.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/13

---

Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-253/13)

2013/C 189/26

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller, O. Beynet and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC and with the second subparagraph of point 1(a) and points 1(b), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to that directive, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC and with the second subparagraph of point 1(a) and points 1(b), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to that directive, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;

1

| — | Order the Republic of Bulgaria, under Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 8 448 per day as of the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case, for infringement of the duty to notify the Commission of the measures adopted to comply with Directive 2009/73/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Republic of Bulgaria, under Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 8 448 per day as of the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case, for infringement of the duty to notify the Commission of the measures adopted to comply with Directive 2009/73/EC;

| — | Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the adoption of measures to comply with the Directive expired on 3 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.

1

---
# C_2015016EN.01000701.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament

(Case C-447/13 P) (1)

(Appeals - Member of the European Parliament - Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery - Limitation - Reasonable time)

(2015/C 016/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nencini v Parliament (T-431/10 and T-560/10, EU:T:2013:290) in so far as concerns Case T-560/10; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nencini v Parliament (T-431/10 and T-560/10, EU:T:2013:290) in so far as concerns Case T-560/10;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Riccardo Nencini in the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Riccardo Nencini in the present appeal;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-560/10; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-560/10;

| 5. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

---
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA
JOSEPH SEME, Plaintiff, 

### v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No. 11-2066 (RJL)



# _______________________________) ORDER

# fl-.,-**(September~,** 2012) Forthe reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby 

### ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 

### #16] is GRANTED; and it is further 

### ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendant. This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

### SO ORDERED.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  J EROME A LVIN A NDERSON , No. 04-17237

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 

#  CV-00-02494-WBS C.A. T ERHUNE , Director, ORDER

Respondent-Appellee. 

# 

Filed May 14, 2007
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard bythe en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The threejudge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

5803PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2007 Thomson/West.