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

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 99-60115

Summary Calendar

__________________

PHUC CINH XUAN TROUNG,

 

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 

Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A-27-852-607

----------------------------------------------------

March 9, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Phuc Dinh Xuan Truong, a Vietnamese national, has filed a petition for review of the Board

ofImmigrationAppeals’(“BIA”)finalorder of deportation. Because the petition for review was filed

in excess of 30 days from the BIA’s decision, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 § 309(c)(4)(C). Accordingly, the

petition for review is DISMISSED.

To the extent that Truong’s petition sounds in habeas, it is TRANSFERRED to the United

States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana for disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b).

Truong’s motion for release on bond pending deportation is similarly TRANSFERRED. Truong’s

motion for leave to amend his pleadings is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TRANSFERRED;MOTIONFORRELEASETRANSFERRED;MOTIONTOAMEND DENIED.
258 La. 546

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thorn B. HIMEL and Cyril Geary.

No. 51360.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1971.

In re: Thorn B. Himel and Cyril Geary applying for writs of certiorari and review.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue’ herein, directing the Honorable Elmo Lear, Judge of the 19th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of October, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through his attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JERMAINE HENDERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 336 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of January, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 10679.

#### The City of Mansfield *v.*Gordon.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Mr. Glenn M.*Cummings, for plaintiff, in error.

*Mr. Van C. Cook,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
# C_2020297EN.01004802.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/48

---

Action brought on 24 July 2020 — LD v Commission

(Case T-474/20)

(2020/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: LD (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| — | annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-456/20, LA v Commission.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15206]

[[Page 35939]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending May 21, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2002-11966.
    Date Filed: May 19, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: June 9, 2011.
    Description:
    Application of Triair (Bermuda) Limited (``Triair'') requesting an 
exemption and an amended foreign air carrier permit authorizing Triair 
to engage in: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail from any point or points behind any Member State of 
the European Union, via any point or points in any EU Member State and 
via intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States 
and beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail between any point or points in the United States and 
any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; 
(iii) foreign charter air transportation of cargo between any point or 
points in the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other 
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements set forth in the 
Department's regulations governing charters; and (v) charter 
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available 
to European Union carriers in the future, to the extent permitted by 
the Applicant's homeland license on file with the Department.

Renee V. Wright,
 Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-15206 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### Russell VALENCE et al. v. STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 53872.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Russell Valence, Individually and as Administrator of the estate of his minor son, Barry Valence, applying for Certiora-ri, or Writ of Review, .to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 280 So.2d 651.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the court of appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We have issued our report dated November 9, 2000,  accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements  incorporated  by reference  in the Annual  Report of NS&L
Bancorp,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  September 30, 2000. We hereby
consent to the  incorporation  by reference of said reports in the  registration
statement  of NS&L  Bancorp,  Inc.  on Form S-8  (File NO.  333-1566,  effective
February 21, 1996).


/s/ Kirkpatrick, Phillips & Miller


December 26, 2000
Springfield, Missouri
18 POLLUTANT PTE

(tons/yr) POLLUTANT PTE

(tons/yr)

PM 12. 6 2 BENZENE 0.36

PM 10 12. 6 2 BERYLLIUM 0.04

PM 2.5 12.62 DIOXIN/FURAN 9.97 x 10 - 8

SO 2 66. 25 HCl/Cl 2 19.8

NO X 74.99 LEAD 0.0968

VOM (OZONE) 15.70 MERCURY 0.03

CO 31.04 METHANOL 0.4069

TOTAL HAPS 21.4 NICKEL 0.0001

ANTIMONY 0.0001 ORGANIC HAP

COMPOUNDS 0.5287

ARSENIC 0.04 SELENIUM 0.0002

The current facility’s PTE is a summation of the potential to emit of each emission unit.

B. Incinerators: Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 Emission Standard Requirements

The regulations applicable to the incinerators are listed below. A listing of any non

applicable requirements and the reasons for the non

- applicability are provided in Appendix

B.

1. Visible Emissions

a. Visi ble Emissions Limitations [35 IAC 212.123 (a) ]

T he emission of smoke or other particulate matter, with an opacity greater than 30

percent, into the atmosphere from any emission source shall not be caused or allowed

, except as allowed by 35 IAC 212.123(b) and 212.124.

b. Fugitive Particulate Matter [35 IAC 212.301 and 212.314 ]

T he facility shall not cause or allow t he emission of fugitive particulate matter from

any process, including any material handling or storage activity, that is visible by an

observer looking generally overhead at a point beyond the property line of the source

unless the wind speed is greater than 40.2 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour.)

except as described in 35 IAC 212.314.
IV

House Calendar No. 215

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 522

[Report No. 103–707]

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration

of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 16, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect

to consideration of a certain resolution reported from

the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule

2 XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to a resolution reported

5 on or before the legislative day of August 19, 1994, pro6 viding for consideration or disposition of the conference

7 report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the
2

HRES 522 RH

1 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to

2 allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and

3 improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agen4 cies and members of the community to address crime and

5 disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.

House Calendar No. 215

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 522

[Report No. 103–707]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

tion reported from the Committee on Rules.with respect to consideration of a certain resoluAUGUST 16, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### State *v.*Jones.

What judgments are appealable. Where a motion, to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is made in a criminal ease, and allowed, but without entry of *final judgment,*this court *can not*take cognizance. of the appeal thereon.

*Appeal from Carroll Circv.it Court.*

Hon. Elias M. Harrell, Circuit Judge.

Attorney General, for appellant.

Gregg, J.

Et appears from the transcript that, at the N ovember term, 1866, of the Carroll county circuit court, the defendant was' indicted for an assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to inflict a bodily injury upon one Calvin C. Shouse, without any considerable provocation.

The indictment is in good form and contains all the statutory requisites to charge the offense.

*376. At the February term, 1869, the defendant appeared in that court and filed his motion to dismiss the prosecution, because the court had no jurisdiction to try him.

The record, which is certified to this court to be “a true, correct, and complete, transcript of the proceedings in this cause,” recites that, “ the court being advised of the matters and things arising on the motion to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction, heretofore filed, doth sustain said motion,” and thus concludes the record entry without any final judgment upon the motion or otherwise.

This court can'not, on appeal, adjudicate the alleged error of the court below, in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction, until the case is there prosecuted to final judgment.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.
# C_2022424EN.01001202.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-330/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 14 - Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ - Fitness centres - Individual or group coaching)

(2022/C 424/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Escape Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 14 of Annex III thereto,

must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting of permission to use sporting facilities in a fitness centre and the supply of individual or group coaching may be subject to a reduced rate of value added tax where that coaching is linked to the use of those facilities and is necessary for the practice of sports and physical education or where that coaching is ancillary to the use of those facilities or to their actual use.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                        31
<INVENTORY>                                      1,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,950
<PP&E>                                          12,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,308
<BONDS>                                          4,268
<COMMON>                                            73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,377
<SALES>                                         10,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,882
<CGS>                                            7,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                       548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.01
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Michael P. Mack, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not containany 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 annualreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its controlled subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:November 26, 2003
No. 00-989.

#### Hansen et al. *v.*Snohomish County et al.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023321EN.01005002.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/50

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bihor — Romania) — P.C.H. v Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea, Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justitie, in the presence of: Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-642/21, (1) Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor and Others)

(2023/C 321/53)

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              94
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      330
<ALLOWANCES>                                        28
<INVENTORY>                                         22
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   830
<PP&E>                                           4,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,013
<BONDS>                                            892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           585
<OTHER-SE>                                         176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,121
<SALES>                                            818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  78
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    137
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 79
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### Warren H. BODDEN and Celeste K. Bodden, Appellants, v. FIRST CITY BANK OF TAMPA, a banking corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-853.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.