alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022463EN.01004401.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/44

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Primagra and Mlékárna Hlinsko v Commission

(Joined Cases T-101/21 and T-213/21) (1)

(Actions for annulment - European Structural and Investment Funds - ERDF - Cohesion Fund - ESF - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Letter concerning the follow-up of recommendations set out by the Commission in its audit of alleged conflicts of interest - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/63)

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Applicants: Primagra a.s. (Milín, Czech Republic) (Case T-101/21), Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. (Hlinsko, Czech Republic) (Case T-213/21) (represented by: S. Sobolová and O. Billard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hradil and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the letter of the European Commission of 22 October 2020 addressed to the Czech Republic, entitled ‘Follow up of audit No REGC414CZ0133’ and bearing the reference Ares(2020) 5759350.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The actions are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The actions are dismissed.

| 2. | Primagra a.s. and Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Primagra a.s. and Mlékárna Hlinsko a.s. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
```

[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]               
[Page 73082]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29no10-87]                         

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

 
Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Time And Place: Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting 
will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20571.

Open Agenda Item: Item No. 1: Ex-Im Bank Advisory Committee for 2011.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public observation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information, contact: Office of the 
Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Tele. No. 202-
565-3957)

Jonathan J. Cordone,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-29918 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15324]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-16-000]


Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 3, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company 
LLC submitted its second revised tariff filing: Oncor TFO Tariff Rate 
Changes to be effective 7/1/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672122352428090b0e090234121717081513270102150449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62242730212d0c0e0b0c07311712120d101622040710014c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15324 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Quarterly Summary of Government Motor Vehicle Accidents

                - Title:  Quarterly Summary of Government Motor Vehicle Accidents 
                - Form #:         GSA2075      
                - Current Revision Date:  01/1991
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### James Patrick FEDICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and William C. Owen, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*393Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. State v. Polo (Fla.1971) 242 So.2d 457; Belger v. State (Fla.App.1965) 171 So.2d 574.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
# C_2022037EN.01001001.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/10

---

Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-670/19, Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament

(Case C-613/21 P)

(2022/C 37/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Terwinghe, C. González Argüelles, R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero

Form of order sought

The appellant claims, principally, that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

The appellant claims, in the alternative, that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19;

| — | dismiss the action brought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought at first instance;

| — | order Mr Carbajo Ferrero to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Mr Carbajo Ferrero to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal is based on, first, errors of law relating to the interpretation of the decision laying down the stages of the selection procedure of senior officials of 16 May 2020, as amended by the decision of the Bureau of 18 February 2008, and the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and transparency and, second, a distortion of the facts. The Parliament submits that the General Court erred in finding that the procedure for the appointment of the Director for Media of the Directorate-General for Communication was carried out in an improper manner, in that the Advisory Committee for the appointment of senior officials failed to use the same criteria for the comparative analysis of merits throughout the procedure.

By the second ground based on an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, the Parliament claims that the General Court misconstrued the function of the report on the interviews, compiled by the Advisory Committee, and erred in finding that the Appointing Authority did not correctly take account of the professional experience of the appellant.

---
# C_2023271EN.01000201.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2023 — Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton v Council of the European Union

(Case C-499/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Decision (EU) 2020/135 - Nationals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Consequences of that agreement on the status of citizen of the European Union and the rights attaching to that status for those nationals - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Conditions - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2023/C 271/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton (represented by: P. Tridimas, dikigoros, D. Harrison and A. von Westernhagen, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, (represented by M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Joshua David Silver, Ms Leona Catherine Bashow, Mr Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Mr Anthony Styles Clayton and Ms Gillian Margaret Clayton to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Joshua David Silver, Ms Leona Catherine Bashow, Mr Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Mr Anthony Styles Clayton and Ms Gillian Margaret Clayton to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---
#### Steven ZUGAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-561.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

Steven Zugay, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant *414having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
**Exhibit 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in hiscapacity as an officer of Vitran Corporation Inc., that, to his knowledge, theQuarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of Vitran Corporation Inc.     Date: April 20, 2004 By: /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ       Rick E. GaetzChief Executive Officer     Date: April 20, 2004 By: /s/ KEVIN A. GLASS       Kevin A. GlassChief Financial Officer
19
# C_2021481EN.01001901.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 September 2021 — QT v 02 Czech Republic a.s.

(Case C-574/21)

(2021/C 481/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QT

Defendant: 02 Czech Republic a.s.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the expression ‘the commission lost by the commercial agent,’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a), second indent, of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, be interpreted to the effect that such commissions include commissions for the conclusion of contracts which a commercial agent would have entered into had the commercial agency [contract] endured, with the customers that he or she brought the principal or with which he or she significantly increased the volume of business? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the expression ‘the commission lost by the commercial agent,’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a), second indent, of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, be interpreted to the effect that such commissions include commissions for the conclusion of contracts which a commercial agent would have entered into had the commercial agency [contract] endured, with the customers that he or she brought the principal or with which he or she significantly increased the volume of business?

| 2. | If so, subject to what conditions does this conclusion apply to ‘one-off commissions’ for the conclusion of a contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, subject to what conditions does this conclusion apply to ‘one-off commissions’ for the conclusion of a contract?

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

---
### Third Court of Appeals 

### 209 W 14th Street Austin, Tx 78701 Leta Chandler 311 Las Cruces Buda,Tx 78610



### January 21,2014



### To Whom It May Concern: 

### I am writing this letter in regards to my father Bryan Chandler, case number 03-14-547CR Ms. Peach is not our appellate attorney, she was our trial attorney. I am in the process of hiring an appellate attorney now. I am asking for an extension at this time. Please keep my information on file until another attorney is hired.

Leta Chandler 311 Las Cruces 

### Buda,Tx 78610 

### letachandler@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Leta ChandlerriMMWim*7DmE1EDDDDlb73DHH77rVst\^UNITEDSTaTSSPOSTALSERVICE.100078701U.S.POSTAGEPAIDBUDA.TX78610JAN23, 15AMOUNT$6.4900103612-08|ili»lilliMlaHiili«l«l,*»ll*1,*liilll»i,fl1ilil«!ilill*hi,lll
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND
THE  RELATED CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED  JUNE 30,  1997 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          88,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,684
<INVENTORY>                                     26,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,424
<PP&E>                                       2,620,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                 594,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,583,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,728
<BONDS>                                        823,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           940
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,400,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,583,554
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               706,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  394,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,284
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,788
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,590
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,225)   
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.'S, 10-K FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,518
<SECURITIES>                                     3,837
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,313
<INVENTORY>                                     10,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,955
<PP&E>                                          14,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,730
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              108
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,209
<SALES>                                        100,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,851
<CGS>                                           40,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,794
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     63
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (270)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 21 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT RAYMOND COPP, JR. and

MARJORIE LOUISE HAWORTH,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

v.

BOYD M. MCMASTER; SHARON L.

KINNISON; LORI L. LEWIS;

CAROL COLLINS; MONICA A.

SHARUM; KURT KELLY;

MARGARET E. KELLEY; FOURTH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGESHERIDAN COUNTY, a/k/a John D.

Brackley,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-8020

(D.C. No. 97-CV-1060)

(Wyoming)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs Albert Raymond Copp, Jr. and Marjorie Louise Haworth appeal

the district court’s dismissal of their action against the several defendants for

failure to state a claim. We affirm.

Although it is difficult to tell from the complaint, this action apparently

arose out a state court action brought against plaintiffs by Lori L. Lewis, Ms.

Haworth’s daughter and a defendant in the present action, to collect a debt she

claimed plaintiffs owed her. In addition to Ms. Lewis, plaintiffs sued the state

court judge and two attorneys, one who represented them and another who was

requested to do so. They also sued members of the Commission for Judicial

Conduct and Ethics and the Assistant Bar Counsel for the Wyoming State Bar

Board of Professional Responsibility because they were unhappy with the results

of their complaints against the judge and one of the lawyers. Without specifying

any facts to support their claims, plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had

violated their “God given and Constitutional rights” under the 5th, 6th and 7th

Amendments. See Complaint, rec., doc. 1.

In its order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, the district court

carefully parsed plaintiffs’ claims against the various defendants. We have

reviewed the record and we are not persuaded the district court erred. We
-3-

therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims

substantially for the reasons given by the court in its Order on Motions to Dismiss

dated February 27, 1998.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge