alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020114EN.01001101.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/11

---

Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-50/20)

(2020/C 114/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to comply with the request to instruct the administrator of PNB Banka to grant access to the bank, its information, staff and resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to comply with the request to instruct the administrator of PNB Banka to grant access to the bank, its information, staff and resources;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested instruction is outside its competences. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested instruction is outside its competences.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an effective remedy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the bank’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the bank’s right to be heard.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle because the appointment of the administrator and the interference with the representation of the Bank by its Board as its lawful representative is due to wrongful conduct by the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle because the appointment of the administrator and the interference with the representation of the Bank by its Board as its lawful representative is due to wrongful conduct by the ECB.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Kester Lee HALL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53139.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1973.

In re: Kester Lee Hall applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The trial court having ruled upon relator’s petition, the present application is now moot.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 159

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 24) to give the President

line-item veto authority in appropriations bills for fiscal years 1994

and 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 24) to

give the President line-item veto authority in appropriations bills for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the

5 consideration of the bill (H.R. 24), to give the President

6 legislative, line-item veto authority over budget authority

7 in appropriations bills in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, and

8 the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After

9 general debate which shall be confined to the bill and the
2

HRES 159 IH

1 amendments made in order by this resolution, and which

2 shall not exceed two hours, one hour to be equally divided

3 and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

4 member of the Committee on Rules, and one hour to be

5 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank6 ing minority member of the Committee on Government

7 Operations, the bill shall be considered for amendment

8 under the five-minute rule. It shall first be in order to

9 consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute by,

10 and if offered by, Representative Spratt of South Carolina.

11 The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be con12 sidered as read. It shall next be in order to consider the

13 following amendments: (1) a substitute amendment of14 fered by Representative Castle of Delaware consisting of

15 the text of H.R. 1642; and (2) an amendment thereto by

16 Representative Michel of Illinois. Said amendments may

17 only be offered by the named proponent or a designee,

18 shall be considered as read, and all points of order against

19 said amendments are hereby waived. If the substitute

20 amendment of Representative Solomon is not agreed to,

21 it shall next be in order to consider an amendment by Rep22 resentative Michel of Illinois to the amendment in the na23 ture of a substitute, said amendment may only be offered

24 by Representative Michel or a designee, shall be consid25 ered as read, and all points of order against said amend-
3

HRES 159 IH

1 ments are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the consid2 eration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

3 and report the bill to the House with such amendments

4 as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand

5 a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

6 in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amend7 ment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question

8 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

9 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

10 one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IQBAL SINGH, AKA Ibal Singh,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73853

Agency No. A205

- 934

- 794

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Iqbal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# F ILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73853

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Hernandez

v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), and review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse

credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder , 590

F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010)

. W e deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies as to the details of the first attack ag ainst Singh , the

number of phone threats Singh received
, and w hich of Singh’s family members

attempted to file a police report on his behalf, and based on the omission from

Singh’s application of efforts by his alleged persecutors to find him after he

depa rted from India

. See id . at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under

the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 973

- 74 (9th

Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility determination properly relied on an omission where

the add ed details presented more compelling story of persecution)

. Singh’ s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241,

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credi ble testimony, in this case,

Singh’ s asylum and withhol ding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft
, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Singh’ s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence in the3 16

- 73853

record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquies cence of the government of India

. Id . at

1156

- 57.

Finally, w e reject Singh’s contention that the IJ violated his right to due

process. See Lata
, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process

challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Pat La FRATTA, Relator, v. Hon. William Clayton JOHNSON, as Judge of the Court of Record, in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 25, 1970.

Prohibition denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30270 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JESSIE ALFRED , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:10

- CR

- 77

- 1

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jessie Alfred appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute co caine and cocaine base (crack). He contends that his 1997 state conviction for crack cocaine possession was wrongly used to increase hi s criminal history score because the state offense was part of the federal offense

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30270 Document: 00512792174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2014No. 14

- 30270

The state offense could properly be treated as criminal history if the criminal conduct was “ not part of the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1) ;

see also § 4A1.1 (a) , (d ) , & comment. (n.4). The critical inquiry is whether the prior conduct is “ relevant conduct ” as defined by § 1B1.3 of the Guidelines. United States v. Yerena

- Magana , 478 F.3d 683, 687 88 (5th Cir. 2007) ; see United States v. Thomas , 973 F.2d 1152, 11 58 (5th Cir. 1992). Relevant conduct includes conduct that was “p art of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” § 1B1.3(a)(2) ; see United States v. Benns , 740 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2014)

. We review the distri ct court’s factual finding of relevant conduct for clear

error. See U nited States v. Wall , 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Rhi ne , 583 F.3d 878, 885 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Alfred’s state offense occurred within the alleged dates of the federal conspiracy, the state offense was not relevant conduct because it occurred prior to Alfred’s actual participa t ion in the federal conspiracy

. See § 1 B 1.3 , comment. (n.2(B)) (“A defendant’ s relevant conduct does not include the conduct of members of a conspiracy prior to th e defendant’ s joining the conspiracy, even if the defendant knows o f that conduct .”). In addition, the state offense involved an accomplice who was not part of the federal conspiracy , and the state offense involved crack cocaine while Alfred’s federal sentence was based on ly on powder cocaine. T he district court’s findi ng that the state offense

was not part of the federal offense was at least plausible and thus not clearly

erroneous. Se e Rhine , 583 F.3d at 885; Wall , 180 F.3d at 644

- 45. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-30270 Document: 00512792174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2014
#### New York Health & Racquet Club, Inc., et al., Appellants, v NIA/Kornreich Limited Liability Company, Doing Business as Kornreich/NIA Organization, et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 369]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about October 24, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*349The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for negligence and breach of contract as time barred. While defendant insurance brokers, who admittedly procured marine insurance for plaintiff through an unlicensed carrier, owed plaintiff a continuing duty to monitor the carrier’s financial condition for the duration of the policy procured for plaintiff, such duty did not extend beyond the policy’s expiration *(see, Central Gen. Hosp. v Bramex Ltd.,*174 AD2d 556, *lv dismissed*78 NY2d 1124), and plaintiffs causes for negligence and breach of contract commenced more than six years after the policy’s expiration are thus untimely. In addition, since the fraud alleged by plaintiff is not extrinsic to the contract to procure and monitor proper marine insurance, it may not be utilized to convert the action to one for fraud *(see, Morgan Knitting Mills v Reeves Bros.,*243 AD2d 422) and thus to extend the running of the statutory period until two years from the time of plaintiffs discovery of the fraud *(see,*CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.
ANNUAL INVENTORY OF STORED EQUIPMENT 

JCP FORM NO. 6 (Rev. 6-66) 

Department headquarters shall submit one copy to the JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING within 60 days after the close of 

each fiscal year. List all printing, binding, and related or auxiliary equipment on hand, in storage depots, warehouses, etc., not 

inventoried in a plant. Use additional sheets if necessary. 

SIGNATURE 

NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY NAME AND LOCATION OF PLACE WHEREIN FOR PERIOD ENDED

EQUIPMENT IS STORED 

DESCRIPTION 

Group and identify by type of machinery in the following order: 

ComJl06ing, platemaklng, printinir presees, binding, and related equipment. 

CONDI­ AGE SERIAL NO. SIZE MODEL TION• 

DATE SUBMITTED 

•Condition: N=new; E=excellent; G=good; F=fair; P=:poor; U=unserviceable. l&-76693-1 U,S, GOV!RNMENT PRINTING O,,IC!
H. Res. 428

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 19, 1994.

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. 2108) to make improvements in the Black

Lung Benefits Act. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill

for failure to comply with section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three

hours (excluding time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall be in order to consider

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
2

HRES 428 EH

consisting of the text of H.R. 4415. The amendment in the

nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as

original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
263 La. 984

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby BAGLEY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Bobby Bagley applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made by relator does not warrant the relief sought.
# MAS announcements

### SIN 561499M Mail management, systems, processing equipment, and related solutions

We are supporting all agencies impacted by the U.S. Postal Service forced meter migration. If you need more info or help meeting these deadlines, contact officemanagement@gsa.gov.

## Tell us what you think

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Multiple award schedule-  Overview 
-  Help with MAS buying 
-  Help with MAS contracts to sell to government 
-  Crosswalk of legacy MAS SINs to current SINs 
-  MAS news 
-  MAS announcements 
-  Templates for MAS offerors to use 
-  SIN-specific guidance for buyers
EXHIBIT 99
                                                                      ----------


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A3 of Western Power &
Equipment Corp. (the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, C. Dean McLain, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, based on my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Dated: August 4, 2003

/s/ C. Dean McLain
-----------------------
C. Dean McLain
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>






                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A2 of Western Power &
Equipment Corp. (the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark J. Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Dated: August 4, 2003

/s/ Mark J. Wright
-----------------------
Mark J. Wright
Chief Financial Officer
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 616 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.616
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                                 An Act

  
 
  To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit members of 
national securities exchanges to effect certain transactions with 
respect to accounts for which such members exercise investment 
discretion.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS.

    Section 11(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78k(a)(1)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``(other than an investment 
    company)'';
        (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G);
        (3) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I); and
        (4) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
    subparagraph:
        ``(H) any transaction for an account with respect to which such 
    member or an associated person thereof exercises investment 
    discretion if such member--
            ``(i) has obtained, from the person or persons authorized to 
        transact business for the account, express authorization for 
        such member or associated person to effect such transactions 
        prior to engaging in the practice of effecting such 
        transactions;
            ``(ii) furnishes the person or persons authorized to 
        transact business for the account with a statement at least 
        annually disclosing the aggregate compensation received by the 
        exchange member in effecting such transactions; and
            ``(iii) complies with any rules the Commission has 
        prescribed with respect to the requirements of clauses (i) and 
        (ii); and''.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
#### JACK’S FRUIT COMPANY, not Inc., Petitioner, v. GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 41880.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1972.

Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for petitioner.

M. Craig Massey, of Langston & Massey, Lakeland, Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture; and Robert Crittenden of Department of Agriculture, Winter Haven, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Jack’s Fruit Company has filed with this Court its petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition, seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a mandate of the District Court of Appeal, Second District entered pursuant to that court’s opinion in Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, 249 So.2d 486 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). We issued the rule nisi.

In essence, petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear and consider the merits of the dispute between itself and Growers Marketing Service. The facts of the case are adequately set out in the opinion of the District Court, and need not be repeated here. Now, with the return of Growers Marketing Service before us as well as the relevant portions of the record, and briefs of both parties, it is our opinion that the District Court did indeed have jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 120.31, F.S.A. (providing for review of agency orders by certiorari to the ap*172propriate district court) to hear and decide the merits of the dispute.

The remaining issues raised by relator have been considered and found to be without merit.

Accordingly, the rule nisi heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.