alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO ANTONIO PEREZ -

VELASQUEZ; ANA BERTHA PEREZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74495

Agency Nos. A076-366-359

 A076-366-360

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Antonio Perez-Velasquez and Ana Bertha Perez, husband and wife

and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on

ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

SEP 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74495

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to

reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than three

years after the final administrative order was entered in their case, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for

equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897

(9th Cir. 2003).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely request

to withdraw from their grant of voluntary departure. See Dada v. Mukasey, 128

S.Ct. 2307, 2319 (2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Maurice Mitchell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellate case number: 01-19-00458-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-85575

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, Maurice Mitchell, has filed a motion to access the 

appellate record in this proceeding. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the trial court 

clerk is directed, no later than 10 days from the date of this order, to send a copy of the 

one-volume clerk’s record, filed in this Court on June 28, 2019, and the one-volume 

supplemental clerk’s record filed in this Court on July 19, 2019, to appellant at the 

address provided in his motion:

Maurice Mitchell

TDJC ID # 648121

Allan B. Polunsky Unit

3872 F.M. 350 South

Livingston, Texas 77351.

We further direct the trial court clerk, no later than 15 days from the date of this order, to 

notify the Clerk of this Court the date on which delivery to appellant was made. 

Appellant also has filed a motion to extend the time to file his appellant’s brief. A 

reporter’s record has not been filed, and the appellate record is not yet complete. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1 (providing appellate record consists of clerk’s record and, if 

necessary to appeal, reporter’s record). Accordingly, appellant’s brief is not yet due. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6 (providing date to file appellant’s brief is later of date clerk’s record 

or reporter’s record is filed). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to extend time is dismissed 

as moot.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to send to appellant a copy of Docketing 

Statement (Civil).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____Russell Lloyd____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __August 8, 2019__
# C_2023173EN.01000701.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat Uniclima v Minister for the Interior

(Case C-653/21, (1) Syndicat Uniclima)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery, electrical equipment and pressure equipment - Directive 2006/42/EC - Directive 2014/35/EU - Directive 2014/68/EU - ‘CE marking’ - Imposition, by national regulations, of requirements additional to the essential safety requirements laid down by those directives - Conditions - National safety regulations to counter the risks of fire and panic in establishments open to the public)

(2023/C 173/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat Uniclima

Defendant: Minister for the Interior

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment, read in conjunction with point 31 of Article 2 and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/68,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order to protect the health and safety of persons against risks of fire in premises open to the public, imposes on pressure equipment and assemblies using flammable refrigerants, requirements which do not appear among the essential safety requirements laid down by that directive, for the purposes of the making available on the market or the putting into service of such equipment and assemblies, even though they bear the CE marking.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
# Contact for help

If your question is not included below, you can ask us using the form below. Please expect a response in 1–3 business days (Mondays–Fridays, except federal holidays).

## Who’s my agency sponsor?

The contact info for the person who sponsored you is included in the email you receive prompting you to make an appointment to enroll for your card. If you can’t find this email, reach out to your agency's identity management program office.

## Where’s my card?

Processing times vary depending on your agency. We cannot check the status of your card. Contact your agency sponsor to see where your card is. Get more info about picking up your card.

## Why can’t I get an appointment soon?

If the credentialing center nearest you does not have sufficient availability, you can look at other nearby credentialing centers. GSA does not control appointment availability. Use the online scheduler to make an appointment. Some sites do not offer online booking. Use our site look-up feature to make an appointment at those sites. Get more info about making appointments.

## Submit a question

Required fields are marked with an asterisk ( * ).

## Tell us what you think

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Federal credentialing services-  Overview 
-  Get appointment help 
-  Join our program 
-  Contact for help 
-  About USAccess
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GEORGIA
BONDED FIBERS, INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FRO
THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                       133
<INVENTORY>                                      7,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,912
<PP&E>                                          21,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,133
<BONDS>                                          1,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              157
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,528
<SALES>                                         21,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,272
<CGS>                                           17,630
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (56)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (555)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (943)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.60)
        

</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Village Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Stephane Philogene, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein, Esq.), for appellant.Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 10, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the affirmation defendant submitted from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]), and defendant established that the denial of claim forms which denied plaintiff's claims on that ground had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Furthermore, plaintiff's argument regarding the tolling of defendant's time to pay or deny the claim lacks merit (<i>see Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 38 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50258[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <i>cf. <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 262 AD2d 553 [1999]). Plaintiff's remaining contention is similarly without merit.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Robert Marshall LEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 1971.

R. Bruce Jones, Jr., North Palm Beach, for appellant.

*551Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs and record (oral argument having been waived) we find no error and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
# C_2021035EN.01005601.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/56

---

Action brought on 3 December 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-711/20)

(2021/C 35/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. GonzálezBueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA (Alonte, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element CMS Italy — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2020 in Case R 2215/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

| — | Infringement of the principles of legal security, equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of legal security, equal treatment and sound administration.

---
# C_2022084EN.01003302.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rieti — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against G.B., R.H., interested party: Procura della Repubblica di Rieti

(Case C-334/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/45)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.

---
1

Participant List 

US EPA Listening Session on Greenhouse Gas Standards for Utilities and Petroleum Refineries 

Session with Petroleum Refiners 

March 4, 2011 

FIRST LAST TITLE ORGANIZATION 

Randy Armstrong Environmental Issues Director 

Shell Exploration and 

Production Company 

Charles Bennett 

Senior Advanced Environmental 

Professional 

Marathon Petroleum 

Company 

Roger Christy Environmental Issues Coordinator 

Chevron Government 

Affairs 

Steve Cousins Vice President of Government Affairs Lion Oil Company 

Howard Feldman 

Director, Regulatory and Scientific 

Affairs 

American Petroleum 

Institute 

David Friedman Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs 

National Petrochemical and 

Refiners Association 

Matthew Hodges Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs Valero Energy Corporation 

Bob Neufeld 

Vice President of Environment and 

Governmental Relations 

Wyoming Refining 

Company 

Derek Wheeler Regulatory Affairs Manager ExxonMobil
U.S. General Services Administration

1122 Program

Section 1122 of the fiscal year 1994 National Defense 

Authorization Act established the authority for state and units 

of local governments to purchase law enforcement equipment 

through federal procurement channels, provided that the 

equipment is utilized in the performance of counter-drug 

activities. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 amended 10 U.S.C. 381, to expand the 

procurement authority under the 1122 Program beyond counterdrug activities, to include equipment for homeland security and 

emergency response activities. 

Each state participating in the 1122 Program designates a State 

Point of Contact (SPOC) to administer the state’s activities 

under the program, by validating the counter-drug, homeland 

security and emergency response mission of each procurement 

request, and ensuring the availability of funds.

The authority for the “1122 Program” resides with the Department 

of Defense. The U.S. Army, as the designated program manager 

of the program, works with GSA to approve access to certain 

equipment found under GSA Schedules and specific motor 

vehicles found under GSA’s AutoChoice program. For a 

current listing of Schedules, Special Item Numbers (SINs) and 

equipment available under the program, please refer to the 

“1122 Program Equipment and Supplies Catalog” link located at 

www.gsa.gov/1122program. 

The SPOCs are responsible for receiving all orders from state 

and local government entities, and for determining that the items 

will be used for counter-drug, homeland security and emergency 

response activities. For items under GSA Schedules, the SPOCs 

will send all orders directly to the Schedule contractor; payment 

will also be made directly to the Schedule contractor. Orders 

for the purchase of vehicles must be placed by the 

SPOCs using AutoChoice, GSA’s online vehicle ordering tool 

(www.gsa.gov/autochoice).

The 1122 Program offers Americans peace of mind by enabling state 

and units of local government, access to federal sources of supply 

to purchase equipment in support of the war on drugs, homeland 

security and emergency response activities. The men and women 

within law enforcement, homeland security and emergency response 

activities harbor responsibility 365 days a year. Because their duties 

are so vital to our nation’s well being, it’s imperative that they have 

the right tools for the job. GSA supports these state and local entities 

through the 1122 Program.

For more information, visit:

www.gsa.gov/1122program
Ministry 

### Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning Curacao Civil Aviation Authority

Date: February 25th, 2013

Subject: Operation of7th freedom charter flights by Insel Air

Dear Sirs, To: Director Office International US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street SW Room 6402 Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A

The Undersigned, Head of the**Cura~ao** Civil Aviation Authority, hereby confirms that**Cura~ao** will consider applicationby U.S. carriers for the approval to operate charter flights to and from**Cura~ao** in accordance with the provisions of the Air TransportAgreementbetween the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to**Cura~ao** and the United States ofAmerica, signed July 14, 1998.**Cura~ao** will in addition grant approval for designated U.S. air carriers to operate 7th freedom charter flights on the understanding that the United States would grant similar flights to designated**Cura~ao** air carriers in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Air TransportAgreement. Sincerely yours, 

### .7

,"/

. Concincion-Quirindongo, LL.M. Head CCAA
No. 10752.

#### Gund *v.*The Cleveland Store Fixture Co.

Decided December 1, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. M. P. Mooney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Carr, Stearns & Chamberlain*and *Mr. W. H. Hill,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
[NEFF + RICCI LLP LETTERHEAD]


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
GFSB Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (Nos.
333-07131 and  333-51498) on Form S-8 of GFSB Bancorp,  Inc. of our report dated
July 30,  2004,  except  for note 19, as to which the date is August  25,  2004,
relating to the consolidated  statement of financial  condition of GFSB Bancorp,
Inc. as of June 30, 2004 and 2003,  and the related  consolidated  statements of
earnings and comprehensive  earnings,  changes in stockholders'  equity and cash
flows for the years ending June 30, 2004 and 2003,  which report  appears in the
June 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB of GFSB Bancorp, Inc.



/s/ NEFF + RICCI LLP


September 27, 2004
Albuquerque, New Mexico
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 Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies 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 operation of the Company.




Date:  May
      21,
      2007




/s/
              *William
              D. Rigsby*William
              D. RigsbyChief
              Executive Officer




Date:
      May
      21, 2007




/s/
              *Russ
              Christensen*Russ
              ChristensenActing
              Principal Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Whitemark Homes, Inc. and will be retained
      by Whitemark Homes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.