alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020297EN.01004401.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

---

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission

(Case T-435/20)

(2020/C 297/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently:






  — | annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently:

—

annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of good administration.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with 15 separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed pursuant to our decision in State of Florida v. O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Jay GJERNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-758.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 4, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 233 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 75

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 233

                          [Report No. 103-211]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the 
 Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
               fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 3, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 75
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 233

                          [Report No. 103-211]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the 
 Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
               fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 1993

    Mr. Frost, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the 
 Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
               fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2401) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill and shall not 
exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After 
general debate the Committee shall rise without motion. No further 
consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a 
subsequent order of the House.
```
#### Fisher *v.*Collins.

It is "within the discretion of the circuit court to permit, an amendment of a writ of summons made returnable at a time other than that fixed by law.

*Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court*

Hon. E. J. Searle, Circuit Judge.

William AValker, for appellant.

DuV al & King, for appellee.

Compton, J.

The writ of summons in this case was made returnable at a time other than that fixed by law. The defendant moved to quash and the plaintiff moved to ^imend. The motion to quash was overruled, and leave given the plaintiff to amend the writ, which was accordingly done, by inserting the proper return day, in lieu of that which had been improperly inserted, to which the defendant excepted, and saying nothing further, final judgment was rendered against him, and he appealed

*98In *Mitchell v. Conley, 13 Ark., 314,*the decision of the court below, jiermitting an amendment of the writ of summons, after jilea in abatement filed, was aflirmed. This court said: “ It is the infirmity of this branch of the law, that no general rules can be safely laid down to govern amendments in practice. All that ought to be said is, that they are allowed for the furtherance of justice; that they ought to be so allowed as not to ojierate as a surprise, either in matter of law or fact, and always upon notice to the jiarty to be affected by them; that they ought to rest in the discretion of the court allowing or refusing them, and that this discretion, if reviewed at all by the appellate court, ought rather to be revised where the amendment is wrongfully refused, than where it is erroneously allowed.” And in the subsequent case of *Thompson v. McHenry, 18 Ark., 537,*this court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court refusing to allow an amendment of the original writ, in a suit by attachment, made returnable at a time other than that prescribed by law, where the motion to amend was insisted by the defendant, and where the garnishee had neither voluntarily appeared, nor been notified of the ajiplicatiom The decision seems to have turned upon the point that the proposed amendment would have surprised the garnishee, by jfiacing him in an attitude of -default, without notice of the ajiplication. The court said: *tl*Had these parties been previously notified of the intended ajiplication to amend the writ, or had voluntarily ajipeared to that ajiplication, the court, having the jiower, might have allowed the amendment, upon such terms as would have worked no sacrifice and no injustice. As the case ajijiears, however, in the record, we see no good reason for any sound conclusion that the court below abused its undoubted discretion in the jiremises.” According to these decisions, the allowance of the amendment in the case now before us, as well as the terms on which it was allowed, were matters within the discretion of the court; and we perceive nothing in the record which would warrant us in disturbing the exercise of that fatal discretion. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Certification
      of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10Q of Frawley Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael P.
      Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
      hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|(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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






/s/Michael P. FrawleyName:
                Michael P. Frawley
              Title:
                Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
              Date:November
                9, 2007




This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### George SCHWARTZ, Petitioner, v. Gertrude G. SCHWARTZ (now known as Gertrude G. LeVine), Respondent.

No. 42901.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 14, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 701.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Rosa Serrano,

 Appellant,

v.

Pellicano Business Park LLC,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-15-00290-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012-DCV06341)

ORDER

Appellant, Rosa Serrano, has filed a “Motion to Join and Motion Extend Time” asking 

the Court to consolidate this appeal with cause number 08-16-00291-CV. She also requests a 

ninety-day extension of time to file her brief. In the motion, Serrano states that “jurisdiction of 

this proceeding has been removed under 28 U.S.C. 1446....” According to Serrano, she removed 

the underlying case to federal court on June 16, 2016, but she has not provided the Court with a 

copy of the notice of removal. The clerk of the trial court recently provided the Court with a 

copy of Serrano’s notice of removal filed in federal cause number EP-16-0203-DB. A copy of 

the notice of removal was filed in the office of the El Paso County District Clerk on July 22, 

2016 in cause number 2012DCV06341. The Court has obtained a copy of an order entered by 

the federal court reciting that the court dismissed cause number EP-16-0203-DB on August 31, 

2016. The case is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit (cause number 16-51335).

Even though we question whether jurisdiction of this appeal has been removed to federal 

court, we will abate the appeal out of an abundance of caution. All appellate deadlines are 

1
stayed. No action will be taken on any pending motions, including Serrano’s “Motion to Join 

and Motion Extend Time.” The parties are directed to keep the Court informed regarding the 

status of cause numbers EP-16-CV-0203-DB and 16-51335. Further, Serrano is ordered to 

provide the Court with a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s order, judgment, or opinion disposing of 

cause number 16-51335.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. 

(Hughes, J., not participating) 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEAN D. COOK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District

Judge. (CR-91-305, CA-96-472)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean D. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Quincy Leon Ollison, Assistant

United States Attorney, Bruce Carlton Swartz, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Nadira Clarke, Special Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Cook, Nos. CR-91-305; CA-96-472 (E.D. Va. July 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.01



                   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
              OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Employment
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of the
          operations of the Company.



Date:  August 11, 2004                     By:  /s/ Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                           Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                           Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                           Executive Officer and President
                                           (Chief executive officer)


Date:  August 11, 2004                     By:  /s/ Kent M. Yauch
                                           Kent M. Yauch
                                           Vice President, Chief Financial
                                           Officer and Treasurer
                                           (Chief financial officer)
#### Jerome MITCHELL, father of Sylvia Mitchell, Deceased, and Jerome Mitchell and Alice E. Mitchell, his wife, Appellants, v. Norbert N. SARGENT, father of Steven L. Sargent, a minor, Appellee.

No. 70-295.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 8, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      Exhibit 12


                           GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED
               Statement of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30, 1999
                                                    --------------------
<S>                                                 <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                 $              227.1
  Add - Income taxes                                               123.9
      - Fixed charges                                               61.4
                                                    --------------------

Adjusted earnings                                   $              412.4
                                                    ====================
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                  $               57.2
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                      4.2
                                                    --------------------
Adjusted fixed charges                              $               61.4
                                                    ====================

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                  6.72
</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 8, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2055 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-251150) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 8, 2021
#### ANDREW DEWEES *vs.*SAMUEL MILLER.

Lawful wagers may be the subject of suit and recovery in our courts.

If the wager be illegal, either party may rescind, and recover deposits, even after the result; if the stake has not been paid over. '"

Where the wager is legal, and the issue tried, recovery can be had only on a decision of the appointed judges.

Assumpsit against a stake-holder, to recover a sum deposited as a wager on the result of a foot-race.

*348The plaintiff’s case assumed that the race had not been fairly run, nor any decision with regard to it made by competent judges; both of which the defendant controverted in fact. On the law of the case,

*Allderdice,*for plaintiff.

*Bayard, jr.,*for defendant.

*Mr. Allderdioe*said,

that the courts had with hesitation entertained suits for a wager. If the wager is illegal, the money may be recovered from the stake-holder at any time before he pays it over, and when the wager is legal the party may withdraw it before the race is run, or the event has happened. (1 *Stark. Ev.,*1235 ; *Wheat. Selw.,*1091; 12 *Johns. Rep.,*1.)

*Bayard, jr.,*replied:

that there was nothing illegal or immoral in a foot race ; if such contest of speed was had without fraud. But fraud will vitiate the race and the contracts in reference to it. There can be no .recovery of a bet, without a decision by the appointed judges. (1 *Harr. Rep.,*496.)

*By the Court.*

Booth, *Chief*Justice.

With regard to wagers being made a subject of judicial investigation and recovery, it has often been regretted that it has been allowed; but it has been allowed, and a recovery may be had in cases where the wager is not against policy or against a statute. In regard to illegal wagers, either party may rescind the contract and recover back the stakes at any time, even after the event, if before the stakes are actually paid over.

But with regard to legal wagers, neither party can disaffirm the contract, or recover back the stakes before or after the event, if the event actually takes place, and a decision has been made as to the result. If the event cannot take place, or the result cannot be ascertained, the depositors may each recover back his money upon general principles governing the action of assumpsit. If the event has taken place and the result determined, the money can be recovered only on the decision as to that result. If, according to the wager, the parties have appointed judges of the event, it can be ascertained only by the decision of the judges.

Verdict for defendant.
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.**
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **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 Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr., Chief Executive Officer 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 (a) the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Dated:
      August 4, 2005
    
    /s/
      Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.Stoney
      M. Stubbs, Jr.
      Chairman
      of the Board
      and
      Chief Executive Officer