alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022368EN.01001001.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 — Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-603/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Transport - Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 - Access to the international road haulage market - Cabotage - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Condition that the measure must be of individual concern to the applicant - Professional association - Effective judicial protection - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Emmerechts, A. Norberg and L. Vétillard, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
Instructions for Adding Subgroup for SIN

518210DC

SIN Subgroup: “NARA-Compliant Digitization Services for Federal

Records”

Dear MAS Contractors Holding SIN 518210DC,

As a follow-up to the June 6 2021 email related to introducing a SIN Subgroup for

NARA-Compliant Digitization Services for Federal Records, this document outlines the actions

contractors must take, and the requirements to select that SIN Subgroup. Below are instructions

for selecting SIN Subgroups in your eBuy profile page starting on December 4, 2023.

SIN Subgroups were created to give buyers the ability to clearly identify the smaller subsets of

contractors that offer specific products and services under a broad MAS SIN, or identify where

specific requirements are met for technical products, services, or solutions. Subgroups give

further clarity or specificity of contractor offerings under a particular SIN. They do NOT expand

or limit the scope of awarded contract offerings.

Contractor selection of a SIN Subgroup MUST correspond to the awarded offerings under that

specific SIN on their MAS contract. All contractor selections will be monitored by GSA for

compliance, and action will be taken against your contract if you select Subgroups that have not

been awarded under your contract.

SIN Subgroup Requirements:

PLEASE NOTE: Only vendors that have capabilities offered/awarded under SIN 518210DC

that meet NARA’s digitization requirements for BOTH temporary and permanent records

are able to add this SIN subgroup for SIN 518210DC. By adding this SIN Subgroup,

contractors are self-certifying they meet NARA’s digitization requirements/standards for

temporary AND permanent records.

Contractors under SIN 518210DC who wish to be added to the “NARA Compliant Digitization

Services for Federal Records” SIN subgroup are required to review and reference NARA’s

Digitization Regulations for Temporary Records (36 CFR Part 1236 Subpart D) and

Permanent Records (36 CFR Part 1236 Subpart E) — copies of which are included in the MAS

Scope and Templates webpage under the Office Management Category section. For more
information about NARA’s Digitization Regulations contact NARA via rmpolicy@nara.gov.

Note that these digitization requirements will be periodically updated by NARA and will be

incorporated into the MAS solicitation through a refresh and corresponding Mass Modification.

How to select this SIN Subgroup:

1 - Login to eBuy

2 - From the top menu, select "Profile" 3 - Click "Modify Subgroups"

4 - Select the 518210DC subgroup according to the instructions

If you experience any technical difficulties with updating your eBuy profile, contact our Vendor

Support Center by calling 877-495-4849 or send an email to vendor.support@gsa.gov.

GSA will be performing a quality assurance check of your SIN Subgroup selections against your

MAS contract. Misrepresentation of your awarded offerings under MAS may result in removal of

your catalog from GSA eTools. Please send questions to RecordsManagement@gsa.gov.

Thank you,

MAS Office Management Category
* The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2915

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Howard Spoonhunter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 11, 2002 Filed: February 20, 2002

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Howard Spoonhunter, an Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Public Safety officer, was convicted of conversion after he sold his department-issued gun, police radio, vest, flashlight, and police belt to a pawn shop. In an 18 U.S.C. § 1163 conversion case like this, the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor if the stolen items’ total value is less than $1000, or a felony if the total value is greater than $1000. Spoonhunter contends the district court * committed clear error when it found-2- the items’ total value was $1250. See United States v. Hetherington , 256 F.3d 788, 796 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 636 (2001), (standard of review). Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, we conclude the trial court employed a reasonable method in determining the monetary value of the converted items in this unusual situation, see United States v. Stegora , 849 F.2d 291, 292 (8th Cir. 1988), and thus it did not commit clear error. We affirm the district court. See8th Cir. R. 47(B). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### John FULFORD v. Honorable Oliver P. SCHULINGKAMP, Judge, Orleans District Court.

No. 53812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: John Fulford applying for writ of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. Applicant seeks no instrument relevant to any pending litigation.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in the denial; if applicant is charged with an offense, his right to a speedy trial is reserved to him.
<PAGE>   1
                                                        EXHIBIT 23.04

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AG
Associates, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of AG Associates, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos 33-94716 and 333-02360)
of our report to the Board of Directors and Shareholders of AG Associates
(Israel) Ltd. dated November 8, 1994.

                             Kesselman & Kesselman
                      Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

Haifa, Israel
 December 19, 1996
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0577

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RUSSELL KORTAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant t o the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause wa s classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court on August 17, 2022 . The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Kather ine M. Bidegaray , Di strict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 30 2022

09/30/2022
Case Number: DA 20-0577
# C_2021368EN.01001901.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GD, WT

(Case C-135/21) (1)

(2021/C 368/31)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10. 5.2021.

---
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 12

Providing for mandatory drug testing of Members of the House of

Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas,

Mr. BLILEY, and Mr. RAMSTAD), submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing for mandatory drug testing of Members of the

House of Representatives.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. MANDATORY DRUG TESTING OF MEMBERS OF

3 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any law, rule, or

5 other authority to the contrary, the contingent fund of the

6 House of Representatives shall be available for payment

7 of expenses of a program for testing of Members of Con8 gress for illegal use of controlled substances.

9 (b) CONTRACT FOR TESTING SERVICES.—Not later

10 than 6 months after the date on which this resolution is
2

•HRES 12 IH

1 agreed to, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall

2 contract with a private, nongovernmental entity for testing

3 services to carry out subsection (a).

4 (c) PROCEDURES.—The testing program under this

5 resolution—

6 (1) shall be mandatory for each Member of the

7 House of Representatives;

8 (2) except as otherwise provided in this resolu9 tion, shall be conducted in accordance with the Man10 datory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Test11 ing Programs, as prescribed pursuant to section 503

12 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1987 (5

13 U.S.C. 7301 note);

14 (3) shall be carried out so that 10 percent of

15 the Members are randomly tested in each month;

16 (4) shall require that the final results of each

17 test be provided to (A) the Member involved and (B)

18 the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,

19 which, in any case of positive results, shall take such

20 action as may be necessary under the rules of the

21 House of Representatives; and

22 (5) shall require that the final results of each

23 test be included in a biennial report of the Clerk of

24 the House of Representatives and printed as a
3

•HRES 12 IH

1 House document in October of each even-numbered

2 year.

3 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

4 As used in this resolution—

5 (1) the term ‘‘controlled substance’’ has the

6 meaning given that term in section 102 of the Con7 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and

8 (2) the term ‘‘Member of the House of Rep9 resentatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele10 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Æ
Order entered December 6 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00970
- CV
IN RE SUSAN HARRIMAN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 11994



### O RDER Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s “Motion to Vacate Trial Court Orders, Implement Settlement Agreement and Dismiss,” DI SMISS this original proceeding as moot, and ORDER that the Court’s November 5, 2018 sealing order remain in effect following dismissal of this proceeding. We LIFT the Court’s November 2, 2018 stay of all trial court proceedings relating to the Attorney Th eos Email. We ORDER the parties to each bear their own costs, if any, of this original proceeding.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Judith SIKES, Respondent.

No. 41090.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed. 252 So.2d 258.

ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.
No. 10527.

#### Fisher *v.*Scott, Admr.

Decided December 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

*Messrs. Moore & Craver*and *Mr. C. F. Ohl,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Ar-rel, Wilson & Harrington*and *Mr. Thomas J. McNamara, Jr.,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck. 'Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 46 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 46

 Providing for enclosing the galleries of the House of Representatives 
              with a transparent and substantial material.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

 Mr. Jacobs submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for enclosing the galleries of the House of Representatives 
              with a transparent and substantial material.

    Resolved, That the Architect of the Capitol shall enclose the 
galleries of the House of Representatives with a transparent, and 
substantial material, and shall install equipment so that the 
proceedings on the floor of the House will be clearly audible in the 
galleries. There shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House 
of Representatives such sums as may be reasonably necessary to carry 
out this resolution.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40094

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERONIMO SALVADOR SANTOS-NUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-1005-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Geronimo Salvador Santos-Nuez has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Santos-Nuez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-40094 Document: 00511274820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
# C_2023205EN.01001101.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 April 2023 — Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl v European Commission

(Case C-815/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Online sales - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 2(1) - European Commission decision to initiate an investigation - Territorial scope of the investigation - Exclusion of Italy - Allocation of competence between the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 11(6) - The competition authorities of the Member States being relieved of their competence - Protection against proceedings conducted in parallel by the competition authorities of the Member States and by the Commission - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Act not producing legal effects vis-à-vis third parties - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 205/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (represented by: A. Komninos, dikigoros, and G. Tantulli, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, G. Meessen and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (National Competition Authority, Italy) to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (National Competition Authority, Italy) to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
# C_2020339EN.01002701.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/27

---

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-518/20)

(2020/C 339/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

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: European Union figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in colour yellow and black — European Union trade mark No 2 148 799

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 in Case R 1664/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 00-975.

#### Dubria *v.*Smith, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3917

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Desmond A.E. Jackson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 2005 Filed: October 12, 2005

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Desmond Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit interstate transportation and sale of a stolen vehicle, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in prison and 3 years supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 3559(a)(4). While Jackson was serving his supervised release, he admitted violating several of his release conditions. The district court 1 revoked supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence of 16 months imprisonment without further supervised release. The court recognized the Guidelines Chapter 7 recommended revocation2 To the extent Jackson intended to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his pro se brief, his claim is not properly before us. See United States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). -2- range of 4-10 months imprisonment, but commented on the need to impose a greater sentence in order to deter further criminal conduct given Jackson’s personal circumstances, criminal history and numerous violations, and in order to protect the public. Jackson appeals this sentence, complaining that it is above the recommended Guidelines revocation range.
We reject this argument. The Chapter 7 Guidelines range is nonbinding, the prison term is within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing the revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 2 years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original offense was Class D felony); United States v. Touche , 323 F.3d 1105, 1107 (8th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Jackson’s sentence is not unreasonable . See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). 2
Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
.

|                                                                                                                   |   |   |                                                                                                         |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/                 David P. Yeager                                                                               |   |   | /s/                 Terri A. Pizzuto                                                                    |   |
| Name:                 David P. Yeager                                                                             |   |   | Name:Terri                A. Pizzuto                                                                    |   |
| Title:                   Vice Chairman                                                                  |   |   | Title:   Executive                Vice President,                                             |   |
|              and              Chief Executive Officer |   |   |             Chief              Financial Officer |   |
|                                                                                                                   |   |   |             and              Treasurer           |   |
Corette Plant Schematics Available in Hard Copy 

at EPA Region 8 Headquarters.