alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01004202.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council

(Case T-583/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of the sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 252/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Aliaksandr Bakhanovich to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Aliaksandr Bakhanovich to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
#### Larry PAINTER, Appellant, v. HORNE BROTHERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 83-1127.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 7, 1983.

Decided June 16, 1983.

Robert P. Geary, Richmond, Va. (Geary & Davenport, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

*144Meryl Moore (E.D. David, Marla J. Mel-man, Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., Newport News, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and BULLOCK,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Frank W. Bullock, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this appeal is whether there is an implied right of action available under § 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 793 (as amended by Pub.L. 95-602, Title I, § 122(d), November 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2987). The district court held that there was not.

In agreement with all of the circuits which have considered the issue, we affirm. *See Beam v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.,*679 F.2d 1077 (3 Cir.1982); *Fisher v. City of Tucson,*663 F.2d 861 (9 Cir.1981), *cert.*denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 178, 74 L.Ed.2d 146 (1982); *Davis v. United Airlines, Inc.,*662 F.2d 120 (2 Cir.1981), *cert. denied,*456 U.S. 965, 102 S.Ct. 2045, 72 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982); *Simon v. St. Louis County,*656 F.2d 316 (8 Cir.1981), *cert. denied,*455 U.S. 976, 102 S.Ct. 1485, 71 L.Ed.2d 688 (1982); *Simpson v. Reynolds Metals Co., Inc.,*629 F.2d 1226 (7 Cir.1980); *Rogers*v. *Frito-Lay, Inc.,*611 F.2d 1074 (5 Cir.), *cert. denied,*449 U.S. 889, 101 S.Ct. 246, 66 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); *Hoopes v. Equifax, Inc.,*611 F.2d 134 (6 Cir.1979).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-68860, No. 333-49837, No. 333-44436, and No. 333-101962 on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 33-45815 on Form S-3 of Network Equipment
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated April 11, 2003, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
March 28, 2003.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
June 19, 2003
iEALTH 

AvMed Health Plans • Haven Hospice • SantaFe Senior Living 

August 20, 2010 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

aloha.lev(S>dot.HOV 

Re: Small Community Air Service Development Grant 

Dear Ms. Ley, 

On behalf of SantaFe HealthCare, Inc. and it's affiliates, AvMed Health Plans, Haven Hospice 

and SantaFe Senior Living, I fully support the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Airport 

Authority's request for a Small Community Air Service Development grant to help support the 

new American Eagle Airlines service between Gainesville and Miami and the existing, local air 

carriers, Delta Air Lines and US Airways. As frequent fliers of Gainesville Regional Airport, 

convenience and time is a top priority, both personally and professionally. With corporate offices 

and senior living communities in both Miami and Gainesville, Am'erican's new service will save 

valuable time that has previously been lost by being forced to travel to/from Orlando and 

Jacksonville airports. 

Employees of SantaFe HealthCare and its affiliates currently make approximately twenty 

roundtrips per month between the two locations. With this convenient new service, we expect to 

see an increase in the number of trips. Additionally, American's extensive domestic and 

international route structure from Miami will provide new travel options and a greater level of 

frequency for both business and leisure travelers. 

Due to the critical importance of quality air service for our region and our company, we are 

committed to supporting American's new service and partnering with the airport to continue 

improvements in air service. Therefore, we are allocating $5,000 to help American Airlines 

establish its new route between GNV and MIA. 

Again, I urge you to proceed with approving the Airport Authority's request for a grant to assist 

with marketing efforts for the next two years. If you have any questions about our travel needs, 

please don't hesitate to contact me at 352-337-8710. 

Sincerely, 

Kay Ayers 

Sr. Vice President, Human Resources 

SantaFe HealthCare, Inc. 

/*(i,t,'(' .i5
#### Memphis & St. Francis Plank Road Co. vs. Rives et al.

*Appeal from, Phillips Circuit Court.*

Judgment reversed — per Compton, J.
# C_2022368EN.01000502.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/5

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 May 2022 — Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission

(Case C-233/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Union public contracts - Tendering procedure - Award of contracts - Decision to reject a tender and award the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Quality control - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Germann Avocats LLC (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and J. Estrada de Solà, 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. | Germann Avocats LLC is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Germann Avocats LLC is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
Order entered December 5, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 01527
- CR JOSE RAMON CRUZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th J udicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 24443
- Q



### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. On August 29, 2017, we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has no t been filed

. On November 20, 2017, we received a copy of the trial court’s November 9, 2017 order. In the order, the trial court found that appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal but due to complicated issues presented, counsel
needed additional time in which to file the brief. The trial court then granted counsel’s request
for more time and ordered the brief filed by December 9, 20 1 7.
We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that appellant wants to purs u e the appeal but that
counsel needs additional time to brief the issues. We STRIKE the trial court’s order to theextent it grants additional time. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.6(d) (“the appellate court may extend the

time for filing a brief . . .”).
We ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before DECEMBER 13, 2017. Counsel i s cautioned that the failure to file the brief by that date may result in counsel’s removal from the appeal without further notice.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY WA SHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM DATE: 2 October 2009

SUBJECT: Reply to Formal Response Concerning Use of Two Avian Reproduction

Studie s to Fulfill Notice of Registration Requirement for Chlorophacinone

FROM: Andrew Shelby, Physical Scientist

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Risk Branch II

THRU: Tom Bailey, Branch Chief

Environmental Fate and Effects Divisi on, Environmental Risk Branch II

TO: Dan Peacock, Biologist

Registration Division, Insecticide Rodenticide Branch

The Agency

has reviewed the request to waive the avian reproduction study data requirement for chlorophacinone submitted by L iphatech In c. The Agency is unable to accept the two studies sugges ted to fulfill this requirement for the reasons outlined below. The first suggested study

was “Subacute and Subchronic Toxicity of Chlorophacinone in Japanese Quail” (MRI D 47323201 ) published in the Archives of E xperimental Veterinary Medicine. While we reserve the discretion to include open literature studies in our risk assessments, we cannot accept this open literature study as a replacement for the avian reproduction study

requirement. O ver 90% of the avian reproduction endpoints are not measured. Though total mass of eggs and eggs per hen are measured, embry o survival endpoints, hatching endpoints and hatchling survival endpoints are not determined. Finally , raw data is not included disall owing independent validation of the results. The second suggested study was “Avian Reproduction Study with Difenacoum in the Japanese Quail” (MRI D 46799101). Chlorophacinone and dif enacoum are very

distinct chemicals

. Treating difenacoum as a surrogate chemical is inappropriate and cannot be justified without an acceptable bridging strategy

. D isparate chemical structures preclude the acceptance of this study

for fulfilling the avian reproduction data gap for chlorophacinone. Please refer to OPPTS Har monized Test Guideline 850.2300 for a more thorough explanation as to how to fulfill this data requirement. The Agency welcome s constructive comments and suggestions through the registration process. However, y our formal respon se does not satisfy conditi ons of our May 13, 2009 Notice of Registration to y our company

. For further consideration of this new use registration of Rozol, acceptable avian reproduction studies on two species must be submitted in accordance with registration timelines.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10447

BRIANNA PARKER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BILL MELTON TRUCKING, INCORPORATED; FRANKIE THACKER, as 

the Representative of the Estate of Charles Edward Thacker; TRIPLE E 

BROKERAGE, INCORPORATED; DARR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-2528

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Although a jury returned a verdict for Brianna Parker in her negligence 

action against, inter alia, Bill Melton Trucking, Inc., Parker challenges the 

district court’s: granting Darr Equipment Co. and Triple E Brokerage, Inc.’s,

motions to dismiss; denying her motion for new trial based on, inter alia, 

attorney misconduct; and denying her post-verdict motions for judgment as a 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 22, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10447 Document: 00514397942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2018
No. 17-10447

2

matter of law, including for future medical expenses. Having reviewed the 

briefs and pertinent parts of the record, and heard oral argument, the 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10447 Document: 00514397942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2018
No. 17-10447

3

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in the panel opinion but write separately to note that some of 

the issues on appeal in this case arise because the jury verdict form did not 

include separate answer lines for each element of damages. Both parties 

requested that the court include answer lines for the separate damages 

elements, as is consistent with the Texas Pattern Jury Charges. Texas Pattern 

Jury Charges–General Negligence § 28.3 (2016 ed.). This is a diversity case, 

and in Texas state courts it can be reversible error to not include separate 

damages categories in the jury charge. See Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 

230, 234 (Tex. 2002). While it is not mandatory to follow Texas procedural 

rules in issuing a jury charge, a jury verdict with separate damages categories 

would have been helpful to the court’s review. See Broad. Satellite Int’l, Inc. v. 

Nat’l Dig. Television Ctr., Inc., 323 F.3d 339, 347 (5th Cir. 2003) (“In a diversity 

case, the substance of jury charges is governed by state law, but the form or 

manner of giving the instruction is controlled by federal law.”). Nonetheless, 

the fact that the damages are not apportioned here does not affect the outcome 

of the case. 

 Case: 17-10447 Document: 00514397942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2018
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BYRULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) AND UNDERSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Brian R. Schaefgen, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AmbassadorsInternational, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
August 5, 2004
/s/ Brian R. Schaefgen
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie Lee WILSON.

No. 52992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 13, 1973.

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Counsel, New Orleans, Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Freddie Lee Wilson, was tried by a jury and convicted of murder, La.R.S. 14:30 and given a life sentence in the state penitentiary. During the proceedings, the defendant reserved and perfected thirteen bills of exceptions; however upon this appeal, he has argued only Bill of Exceptions No. 1 and apparently has abandoned the others. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the remaining bills and have found them all to be without merit.

Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was taken to the trial court’s denial of a Motion for a Mistrial after a co-defendant, Louis Scott, had been severed from the trial. Defense counsel based his objections on the grounds that the defendant’s right to confrontation of witnesses against him had been violated.

Before the prosecution elected to sever the co-defendant Scott, it had introduced testimony by Police Investigator, Ronald Black, as to what Scott had said during his confession. Counsel contends this testimony, after the severance, became nothing more than hearsay and was therefore inadmissible.

The former co-defendant Scott subsequently took the witness stand and he substantially corroborated the essence of the testimony of Black. Assuming Black’s testimony was hearsay as to the present defendant, we note that Scott himself testified in person as to the defendant’s guilt and was subjected to extensive cross-examination by defense counsel. Thus, the right of confrontation was afforded.

As to counsel’s argument that the defendant’s right to cross-examination under the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) was violated, this was also corrected *280by virtue of the severance and the subsequent opportunity to cross-examine the former co-defendant.

This bill lacks merit.

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

BARHAM, J., concurs.
Order entered September 9, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00630-CV

TRENT S. GRIFFIN, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-05893

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 29, 2019 “Motion Relating to Informalities.” In 

the motion, appellant asserts objections to actions taken in the trial court and asks that we sustain 

those objections. We DENY the motion.

Appellant’s brief on the merits remains due October 14, 2019. The requirements for an 

appellant’s brief are set forth in rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.1.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN RYAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0404 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-009543-001

The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Respondent

Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm, Chandler

By Marc J. Victor

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 9-11-2018
STATE v. RYAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge 

James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Christopher Robin Ryan seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying 

the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 

538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of 

discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.