alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020129EN.01001402.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-110/20)

(2020/C 129/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 29 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN KENT BLOOM, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CHARLES E. SIMMONS, Secretary of Corrections; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 03-3014 (D.C. No. 02-CV-3300-GTV) (D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Bloom, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals fromthe district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging error in the recording of his state sentence. The district court determined that these defendants were named in a prior complaint containing the same claims by Mr. B loom. The prior complaint- 2 -

was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The d istrict court held that this action was barred by claim preclusion. Claim precl usion applies where there is (1) a final merits judgment in the prior action, (2 ) identity of parties or privies in both actions, and (3) identity of causes of action in both suits. See Wilkes v. Wyo. Dep’t of Employment Div. of Labor Stds. , 314 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 2002). Applying the transactional approach to whatconstitutes a cause of action, it is clear that Mr. Bloom’s sentencing claim is id entical, and other elements of claim preclusion are satisifed in this case. See id. We note that the district court’s dismissal of the prior complaint was recent ly affirmed. See Bloom v. Andrews , No. 02-3366, 2003 WL 21480696, at *2 (10th Cir. J une 27, 2003). AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of all  subsidiaries of Secured Digital  Applications,
Inc. as of December 31, 2007.


Name of Subsidiary                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
                                                         Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SDA Worldwide, Inc.                                       Delaware
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company

China Sea Trade Company, Inc.                             Delaware
a wholly-owned subsidiary of SDAW

DigitalApps Sdn Bhd                                       Malaysia
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company

Perwimas Telecommunications Sdn Bhd                       Malaysia
a 95%-owned subsidiary of DASB

Digital Image ID Sdn Bhd                                  Malaysia
a wholly-owned subsidiary of DASB

DigitalApps Media Sdn Bhd                                 Malaysia
a wholly-owned subsidiary of DASB

Digital Kiosk Technologies Sdn Bhd                        Malaysia
a wholly-owned subsidiary of DID
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 662 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 662

      To limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

  Mr. Crane introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, the aggregate amount of assessed and 
voluntary contributions by the United States to the United Nations and 
its affiliated agencies for any calendar year after 1986 shall not 
exceed an amount which bears the same ratio to the total budget of the 
United Nations and its affiliated agencies as the total population of 
the United States bears to the total population of all the member 
states of the United Nations.

                                 <all>
```
#### Mrs. Violet M. Derbofen, wife of Gail T. KREHER and Mrs. Florence Juncker, widow of Dr. John C. Derbofen v. T. L. JAMES AND CO., INC. Succession of Joe W. Brown, No. 368-953, Civil District Court, Orleans Parish of Louisiana, Mrs. Dorothy Dorsett Brown, Individually and as Testamentary Executrix of the Succession of Joe W. Brown, George Dallas Williams, Sabine Dredging and Construction Co., Inc. and T. M. Dorsett.

No. 62025.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: T. L. James and Company, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 963.

Denied.
#### Lula KEATON, Appellant, v. Mack BARKLEY, Sr., Appellee.

No. 41721.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972.

Steven Rappaport, Miami, for appellant.

Abe Schonfeld, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

No reversible error having been made to appear it is ordered that the judgment below be and is hereby affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN a.nd DEICLE, JJ., concur.
No. 00-709.

#### B&G Enterprises, Ltd. *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 754

To require the use, in Federal formula grant programs, of adjusted census

data, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. BACCHUS of Florida (for himself, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. HASTINGS, Mrs. MEEK, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. BROWN

of Florida, Mr. SHAW, Mr. PETERSON of Florida, and Mr. GOSS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To require the use, in Federal formula grant programs,

of adjusted census data, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Fair Share Act of

5 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—

8 (1) there are significant shifts in the United

9 States population between each decennial census;
2

•HR 754 IH

1 (2) use of decennial census data in allocating

2 Federal funds to States unfairly penalizes States

3 where the population is growing; and

4 (3) because the intent of Federal grant pro5 grams is to distribute funds fairly to States based on

6 their relative population, it is more appropriate to

7 use annual population estimates produced by the

8 Bureau of the Census for these purposes.

9 SEC. 3. USE OF POPULATION ESTIMATES REQUIRED.

10 Section 183 of title 13, United States Code, is

11 amended to read as follows:

12 ‘‘§ 183. Use of most recent population data

13 ‘‘(a) For the purpose of administering any law of the

14 United States in which population or other population

15 characteristics are used to determine the amount of bene16 fit received by State, county, or local units of general or

17 special purpose government, the Secretary shall transmit

18 to the heads of each appropriate department and agency

19 of the executive branch of the Federal Government, and

20 such departments and agencies shall use in administering

21 any such law, the data most recently produced and pub22 lished under this title.

23 ‘‘(b) Not later than 4 months after the date of enact24 ment of the Fair Share Act of 1993 and annually there25 after, the Director of the Office of Management and Budg-
3

•HR 754 IH

1 et shall review Federal programs and publish a list in the

2 Federal Register of those programs which are subject to

3 the provisions of subsection (a).

4 ‘‘(c) The Director of the Office of Management and

5 Budget shall prescribe such guidelines as may be nec6 essary to ensure accurate compliance by Federal depart7 ments and agencies with the requirements of subsection

8 (a).

9 ‘‘(d) The Director of the Office of Management and

10 Budget may waive the requirements of subsection (a) with

11 respect to a Federal program for a fiscal year if the Direc12 tor determines that such a waiver is necessary in the pub13 lic interest.’’.

Æ
#### Herbert McNEIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-639.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Beatrice GOLDSMITH, Appellant, v. HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. S-3.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0300

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JAMIE LYNN STONE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until July 29, 2024, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 20 2024

06/20/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0300
___________ No. 96-1034

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Ronald Wayne Thomas, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

__________ Submitted: August 1, 1996 Filed: August 27, 1996

__________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After a ju ry found Ronald Wayne Thomas guilty of one count o f possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1 )(C), the district court sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, Thomas argues that the district court improperly assessed a two level increase fo r possession of a revolver, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
We agree with the district court's assessment of the § 2D1.1(b)(1 ) increase. The revolver in question--a .357 magnum--was found underneath the ma ttress in the bedroom of Thomas's apartment at the time of hi s arrest. Police also found a container of crack cocaine in the adjacen t bathroom. The proximity of

### -2-

Thomas, the drugs, and the revolver established a sufficient nexus between the revolver and Thom as's criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), commen t. (n.3) (increase applies if weapon is present, unless clearl y improbable that weapon was connected with offens e); United States v. Betz , 82 F.3d 205, 210-11 (8th Cir. 1996) (government showed sufficient nexu s between weapon and cr iminal activity where drugs and guns were accessible and on premises from which defendant conducted drug-related activities). Contraryto Thomas's suggestion, the increase was proper even though the revolver was unloaded. See United States v. Overstreet , 5 F.3d 295, 297 (8t hCir. 1993) (per curiam) (rejecting challenge to increase on groun d tha t weapon was not dangerous as it was not loaded); United States v . Rowley , 975 F.2d 1357, 1363-64 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming increase where unloaded weapons found where defendant also kept drugs). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit 10.22(a)
                                  [LETTERHEAD]




Direct Tel: 0181 873 5015
Direct Fax: 0181 873 5256

11th July 1996

Mr John Rennocks
Executive Director Finance
PowerGen plc
53 New Broad Street
London
EC2M 1JJ

Dear Mr Rennocks,

RE: AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF APPOINTMENT

In the light of your election and agreement to serve in the capacity of Deputy
Chairman as well as non-executive director of NYNEX CableComms Group PLC and
NYNEX CableComms Group Inc. (the "Companies"), this is to confirm that your
Letter of Appointment dated 3rd May 1995 is hereby deemed amended, effective
11th July 1996, to reflect:

(1)  Your appointment to the additional capacity of Deputy Chairman; and

(2)  An increase in your aggregate per annum fee to Pounds Sterling 27,000.

If the amended terms set forth above are acceptable to you, please sign, date
and return the attached copy of this letter to Paul Repp, Executive Director,
Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer and Company Secretary.

This letter is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English
Law.

Yours sincerely,

/s/ Richard W. Blackburn
 .............................................................................
For and on behalf of NYNEX CableComms Group PLC

/s/ Richard W. Blackburn
 .............................................................................
For and on behalf of NYNEX CableComms Group Inc.



I hereby agree to the terms and conditions set out in this letter



/s/ John Rennocks
 .............................................................................
Signed by Mr John Rennocks on this 11 day of July 1996
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 6-18]

      ( print page 30778)    
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

*Tuesday, July 10, 2018:*                     10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Iraq.                

11:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law 114-328.

*Status:*                     Open.                

All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 601 D Street NW, Suite 10300, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

Brian M. Simkin,  

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018-14159 Filed 6-27-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
#### In re ADOPTION of Helen Ramona SHEFFIELD, a minor, by Melvin Barron and wife, Lyverta Barron, Appellants, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee. In re ADOPTION of Cleveland Earl SIZEMORE, a minor, by Melvin Barron and wife, Lyverta Barron, Appellants, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee.

Nos. 69-177, 69-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1970.

Arden Mays Merckle, and Peter J. T. Taylor, of Goldburg, Putney, Taylor & Hampton, Tampa, for appellants.

E. E. Durrance and S. Strome Maxwell, Jacksonville, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Petitioners, appellants here, sought to adopt two minor children. The trial judge consolidated and then denied both petitions. Petitioners appeal and the cases have been consolidated here.

We are not asked to construe Rule 1.-420(a) (1) (i), FRCP, 1968 Revision, 30 F.S.A., but only the word “submission” contained therein. This Rule provides:

> “ * * * an action may be dismissed * * * before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision, * *

Following the second of three hearings, the judge ordered petitioners to bring in the school teachers of one child sought to be adopted together with the school teachers of petitioners’ children and one Moloca Lynn Barron, which petitioners failed to do.

At the third hearing in this cause and before the court handed down its opinion, appellants moved for a voluntary dismissal. We believe the motion was untimely as it *854was made *after*the case was submitted within the Rule and that therefore the trial judge was correct in denying the motion.

We do not pass on the merits of the final judgment since it has not been put in issue.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm.

PIERCE and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### In re Trust Under WILL of Jeanette E. KISKER, Deceased.

No. 40493.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1971.

John T. Carlon, Jr., of Coker and Car-Ion, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Charles J. King, for Trustees and Burl F. George, of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 240 So.2d 500, which allegedly conflicts with the decisions rendered by this Court in Adams v. Vidal, 60 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1952); Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855 (1933), and Story v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 115 Fla. 436, 156 So. 101 (1934). ,

After careful examination of the record and briefs in the cause in light of the *684argument of counsel, we conclude that the alleged conflict is dispelled. Therefore, the writ should be discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000937598
<NAME>                        PERIPHONICS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         26,564
<SECURITIES>                                    1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  46,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,783)
<INVENTORY>                                    16,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               92,514
<PP&E>                                         46,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (26,535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,733
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       140
<OTHER-SE>                                     87,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,047
<SALES>                                        142,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,257
<CGS>                                          69,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  69,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               59,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,296
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,908
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.65


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brandon H. LaVerne, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PCM, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 
| Date:   April 30, 2013 | /s/   Brandon H. LaVerne  |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Brandon   H. LaVerne      |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----