alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021053EN.01006601.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/66

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-767/20)

(2021/C 53/83)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 56 111,31 in relation to Grant Agreement No 271 874 WISMOA under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 23 May 2019 until the date of actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 56 111,31 in relation to Grant Agreement No 271 874 WISMOA under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 23 May 2019 until the date of actual payment;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant failed to fulfil his contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued two debit notes for a total amount of EUR 56 111,31, already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever in the present case as to the facts giving rise to the obligations incumbent on the defendant as shareholder and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by that company after the debit notes were issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.

---
H. Res. 482

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

JULY 21, 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. 3838) to amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development, 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 shall

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original

bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by

the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now

printed in the bill. The amendment in the nature of a sub-
2

HRES 482 EH

stitute shall be considered by title rather than by section.

Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against

the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to

comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI

are waived. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. 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.
# C_2023216EN.01003701.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/37

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-780/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 216/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
#### Almarine Realty Corp., Landlord, Respondent, *v.*Martin Stern, Tenant, Appellant, and Lawrence J. Howell, Undertenant, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 11, 1952.

*Louis Niden*and *Saul Pulrer*for appellants.

*J oseph L. Lefkowits*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The petition is jurisdictionally defective for failure to allege the existence of a contractual right to terminate the tenancy prior to the expiration date fixed in the lease *(Blum*v. *Lewis,*192 Misc. 949). Furthermore, the exclusion of Tenant’s Exhibit C for Identification was error. That exhibit contains a written promise by the then owner of the property not to object to a subletting of the apartment to a person of reputable standing. Said owner, prior to conveying the prop*191erty to the present landlord, consented in writing to an assignment of the lease to Howell. Having thus indicated its willingness to accept Howell as a tenant, it could not validly object to a sublease to Howell on the ground that he was not a person of reputable standing within the meaning of Exhibit C *(supra).*Indeed, no claim has been made that Howell is not a person of reputable standing. The present landlord took the property on the day of closing subject to such consents as its grantor had theretofore given to the tenant.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of appellants dismissing the petition on the merits, with costs, without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the present owner against the former owner seller.

Hammer, Hofstadter and Eder, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 14 - 00210 - CV

________________________ IN RE WILLIAM WALTER YOUNGSTROM, RELATOR O riginal Proceeding Arising fr om the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 12355 ; Honorable Ralph H. Walton, Jr. , Presiding

June 16 , 201 4 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Relator, William Walter Youngstrom, proceeding pro se , files this mandamus proceeding complaining of Matthew A. Mills, his court - appointed appellate attorney in Youngstrom v. State , Cause Number 07 - 13 - 00385 - CR . He alleges Mills refused to raise certain issues in his direct appeal which denied him effective assistance of counsel. 1 We dismiss this proceed ing for want of jurisdiction.

1 This Court delivered its opinion and judgment affirming Relator’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance on June 9, 2014. See Youngstrom v. State , No. 07 - 13 - 00385 - CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6215, at *1 (Tex. App. — Amarillo June 9, 2014, no pet. h .).2

This Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus necessary to enforce our jurisdiction , consistent with the principles of law regulating such a writ, against a judge of a district or county court in our district. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . ' 22.221 (a), (b) ( W est 20 04 ). An attorney representing an appellant on direct appeal is not w ithin our jurisdictional reach . Furthermore , Relator has not demonstrated that issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our ju risdiction. In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 - 93 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Consequently, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against Matthew A. Mills . Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jur isdiction. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                        213,884
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              103,175
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   379,380
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     14,507,244
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       14,303,958
<LOANS>                                    34,906,911
<ALLOWANCE>                                   235,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             52,365,381
<DEPOSITS>                                 28,249,069
<SHORT-TERM>                                5,256,356
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           774,573
<LONG-TERM>                                14,596,377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       15,813
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,473,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             52,365,381
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             1,786,134
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             186,517
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              726,659
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            2,699,380
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          1,083,765
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,861,310
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         838,070
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   5,917
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               309,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               637,462
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    396,599
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  396,599
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.86
<LOANS-NON>                                   213,956
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                4,175
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                32,515
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              232,134
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     916
<RECOVERIES>                                      544
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             235,569
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          235,569
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
H. Res. 579

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 7, 1994.

Resolved, That House Resolution 578 is hereby adopted.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Mrs. Maude Brasseau SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 4044.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.

Hall & Coltharp, by L. H. Coltharp, Jr., DeRidder, for defendants-appellants.

W. R. Jackson, Jr., Leesville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER, and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

On December 3, 1971, plaintiff filed an action in tort in forma pauperis and did not ask for a jury trial. Defendants answered the suit on December 28, 1971. On motion of counsel for plaintiff, the case was fixed for trial on May 10, 1972. Counsel for defendants requested of the Clerk of Court for Vernon Parish, Louisiana, subpoenas of witnesses for said trial.

On May 8, 1972, counsel for plaintiff presented an ex parte motion to dismiss the suit as of non-suit. Said motion was granted by the District Judge on the same day it was presented. On the same date, counsel for defendants filed a rule to show cause why its order of May 8, 1972, should not be rescinded and set aside. In the meantime, plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the same *299defendants for the samé cause of action as in the instant case, and prayed for a jury trial.

After a hearing on the rule in the instant case, the District Judge assigned written reasons and signed dismissal of the rule to show cause. Defendants appealed.

The law applicable to this case is LSA-C.C.P. Article 1671 which provides:

> “A judgment dismissing an action without prejudice shall be rendered upon application of the plaintiff and upon his payment of all costs, if the application is made prior to a general appearance by the defendant. If the application is made after a general appearance, the court may refuse to grant the judgment of dismissal except with prejudice.”

Counsel for defendants in brief and in oral argument before the court contends that defendants had acquired a right to have the case tried by the court without an intervention of a jury, and that defendants are prejudiced by the court allowing plaintiff to dismiss the action in the State court without prejudice.

Each case has to be examined on its particular facts. In the instant case, only two witnesses had been subpoenaed by defendants. One of the parties resided in Lees-ville and the other in Lake Charles. Counsel for defendants had ample time to notify the witnesses prior to trial. No harm has been done. As the trial judge stated in his written opinion, defendants’ case has not been prejudiced.

The trial judge is given discretion under LSA-C.C.P. Article 1671 as to whether a case will be dismissed with prejudice after a general appearance has been made by a defendant, and under the facts of this case we are of the opinion that he has not abused the discretion granted him by the above article.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Affirmed.
TRAMETRICH D. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, 

Florida Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5590

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Trametrich D. Johnson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Frederick W. COPELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 13, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Jimmy Lewis BROWN, Petitioner, v. Herboth S. RYDER, Judge of the Circuit Court in and for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. 73-434.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael M. Chaffee, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 5, 2008

/s/ Michael M. ChaffeeMichael ChaffeeChief Executive Officer

1

---
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Carol Jane BELL, Relator, v. Quentin T. ELDRED, in his capacity as Master, 11th Judicial Circuit and Circuit Judge David Popper, in his capacity as Circuit Judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit, Respondents.

No. 73-1127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF POLICY

M EMORANDUM SUBJECT: Transmittal to Docket: Documents from the March 2 1, 2011, Public Meeting

in Boston, Massachusetts, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Implementation of Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review FROM: Stuart C. Miles - McLean

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management TO: Public Docket #EPA - HQ - OA - 2011 - 0156: Im p roving Regulations: General As called for b y President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospective analy sis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify , streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned." As part of its retrospective review of regulatio ns, EPA convened public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodicall y review our regulations. T his Memo transmits to the docket documents from the public meeting held on March 21 , 2011, in Boston, Mass achusetts
.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert FELTON, Jr. v. Matthew S. BRANIFF, Judge, (Section “B”) Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 62602.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Robert Felton, Jr., applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The mandamus application is moot since the district court decided the matter on July 31, 1978.
<PAGE>

                                   AGREEMENT

     THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 10th day of December, 1998, by and 
between MACUSA, INC., a Minnesota Corporation ("MacUSA"), and TECH SQUARED 
INC., a Minnesota Corporation ("Tech Squared");

                                   WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, MacUSA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tech Squared; and

     WHEREAS, MacUSA is a party to an Underwriting Agreement dated December 
10, 1998 in which it will sell two hundred thousand (200,000) shares of 
Digital River, Inc. common stock (the "Underwriting Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, MacUSA does not have a bank account and therefore desires that 
Tech Squared receive and hold for the benefit of MacUSA the funds due to 
MacUSA under the Underwriting Agreement and Tech Squared has agreed to do so;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and the mutual 
agreements, covenants and provisions contained in this Agreement, and other 
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is 
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     Tech Squared will receive and hold for the benefit of MacUSA funds due 
to MacUSA under the Underwriting Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as 
of the day and year first above written.

TECH SQUARED:                        MACUSA:
Tech Squared, Inc.                   MacUSA, Inc.

By: /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]                  By: /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
  -------------------------             ------------------------
  Its:                                  Its:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12

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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                       Six Months Ended
                                             June 30, 1999
                                            ----------------
<S>                                            <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations            $   158.5
  Add - Income taxes                               101.9
      - Fixed charges                               37.3
                                               ---------
Adjusted earnings                              $   297.7
                                               =========

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                             $    33.8
  Portion of rent expense
    representing interest                            3.5
                                               ---------
Adjusted fixed charges                         $    37.3
                                               =========


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                  7.98

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 6279** 

JORGE GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

BETTY INPOLD ,
Defendant

– Appellee,

and

ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; ROBERT C. LEWIS; RICHARD NEELY; LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY T. SMITH; JUDY ATWATER; DENNIS E. MARSHALL; D. HOUSE; J. HYATT; E. COLEMAN,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv

- 00454

- RJC )

Submitted : May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge , and AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motions for reconsideration and leave to amend
his complaint. This court may exercise jurisdi ction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 ,

545

- 4 7 (1949). The order Gevara seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 399 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 399

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 12, 1994.
    Resolved, That Representative Obey of Wisconsin is hereby elected Chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```