alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022244EN.01003302.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-112/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr John Numbi to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr John Numbi to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### Duane C. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. Gordon COLE et al., Appellees.

No. 71-677.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellant.

Michael J. Silverstein, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

*184PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Hodges v. Helm, Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 418; Glaab v. Caudill, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 180.
# C_2023296EN.01000201.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P)

(Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(f) - Concept of ‘environmental law’ - Article 2(1)(g) - Concept of ‘administrative act’ - Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant - Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible - Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations - Article 271(c) TFEU - Scope)

(2023/C 296/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-212/21 P)

Appellant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by: S. Abram KC and J. Flynn, KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

(Case C-223/21 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by S. Abram KC and J. Flynn KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas** 

June 1, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00325

- CR

Carlos MARQUEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13

- 07

- 00117CRF Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Carlos Marquez entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which Marquez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance

. As part of his plea bargain, Marquez waived his right to file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Marquez timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk ’ s record, which includes the trial court ’ s r ule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an app eal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. ” Id

.

The clerk ’ s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court ’ s certification that Marquez does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk ’ s record to determine whether trial court ’ s certification is accurate).

Marquez is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to r ule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that Marquez has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by June 22, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref ’ d) (not designated for publication).We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further
order the clerk of this court to serve copies of t his order on the attorneys of record and the court
reporter

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

co urt on this 1st day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney COUVILLION and Martha McDougall.

No. 62774.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Rodney Couvillion and Martha McDougall, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
##### 



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 Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005, of
Virco Mfg. Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of the Company
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 operations of the Company. Dated: April 14, 2005/s/ Robert A. VirtueRobert A. VirtuePresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert E. DoseRobert E. DoseVice President- Finance and Treasurer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Virco Mfg.
Corporation and will be retained by Virco Mfg. Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023296EN.01003001.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T-272/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Member of the Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Article 9 of Protocol Noo 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Competence of the authority that issued the request for waiver of immunity - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Scope of the Parliament’s review - Procedure for examining the request for the waiver of immunity - Rights of the defence - Impartiality)

(2023/C 296/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, (Waterloo, Belgium) Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Waterloo) (represented by, P. Bekaert, J. Costa i Rosselló, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers

Defendant: European Parliament, (represented by N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain, represented by A. Gavela Llopis and J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the European Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of their immunity.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres and Ms Clara Ponsatí i Obiols to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in Cases T-272/21 R and T-272/21 R II; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres and Ms Clara Ponsatí i Obiols to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in Cases T-272/21 R and T-272/21 R II;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs, including those incurred in Case T-272/21 R II. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs, including those incurred in Case T-272/21 R II.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

L.S., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3631

[March 2, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-DP-000444-

XXXX-MB.

Andrew A. Holness of Law Offices of Andrew A. Holness, for appellant.

Meredith K. Hall of Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2023015EN.01003601.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Ryanair v Commission (Croatia Airlines; COVID-19)

(Case T-111/21) (1)

(State aid - Croatian air transport market - Aid granted by Croatia to an airline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Direct grant - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Free provision of services - Assessment of the damage - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 15/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn and C. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 8608 final of 30 November 2020 on State aid SA.55373 (2020/N) — Croatia — COVID-19: Damage compensation to Croatia Airlines (OJ 2021 C 17, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
#### Jessie BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40102.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 8, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed. 238 So.2d 523.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 8, 2016

t0705 

# Order

Clerk July 8, 2016

153884

In re SMART, Minors SC: 153884

COA: 329413

Wayne CC Family Div:

97

- 360976

- NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be r eviewed by this Court.
# Materials NotIncluded in Airworthiness Directive (AD)Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1251 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM133AD A340-71-4006, ROl --- 5/14109 ROHR RA34071-32 --- 12/11/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 LindAve. Sw., Renton, WA 98057 

### 4252271221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9a.m. and 3pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/0512008
263 La. 109

#### Finis Leach CLAMPITT et al. v. DAVIS BROTHERS LUMBER CO. et al.

No. 52887.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: Finis Leach Clampitt and Mrs. Helen Marbury Raymond applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Jackson. 266 So.2d 248.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### The UNITED STATES of America, v. Chester Oren BARE.

No. 6094.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1936.

*1020Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellant, it is now here ordered and adjudged that this cause be docketed in this court and that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. It is further ordered that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/              **John              H. Sottile** * *                                                                                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John              H. Sottile                                                                                                                                        |
|   | Chairman                of the Board of Directors, President and                Chief Executive Officer (Principal                Executive                Officer) |
|   | November              8, 2007                                                                                                                                       |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 97

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives respecting 
            curriculum to teach about the horrors of nazism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

 Mr. Saxton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives respecting 
            curriculum to teach about the horrors of nazism.

Whereas the brutal murder of millions upon millions of innocent people and the 
        unspeakable attempt to commit genocide against the Jews by the Nazis are 
        crimes unparalleled in the history of mankind and constitute acts which 
        cannot be forgiven and forgotten;
Whereas despite the enormity of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis, it has 
        been erroneously argued that time should heal all wounds and that 
        generations born after the Holocaust should not have to bear 
        responsibility for that tragedy; and
Whereas since a crucial linchpin to Nazi ideology was racism, it is incumbent on 
        our society to teach its children that racism in any form is an anathema 
        to all mankind and that any group which advocates a policy of racial 
        supremacy is no less guilty than the Nazi and Fascist governments which 
        murdered millions in the name of racial purity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that the Department of 
Education should develop a curriculum for instructing primary and 
secondary school children in the history of the Nazi rise to power in 
Germany, the social and economic forces which were the foundations of 
nazism, and the resulting Holocaust which was perpetrated against 
humanity by the Nazis.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                     3,284,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                286,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4,090,000
<PP&E>                                     4,744,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,500,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19,930,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     39,590,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     124,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (19,784,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19,930,000
<SALES>                                      251,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             251,000
<CGS>                                        160,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            220,899,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (396,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (220,412,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (220,412,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                            (220,412,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.97)


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Texas Southern University, Texas Southern University President Leisa Crumpton

- Young and General Counsel

Hao Le v

. Mary Young

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00 913

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 22

- 77744

Trial court: 12 7 th District Court of Harris County

On January 3 , 202 3

, appellant s filed a “Motion For Leave to Consolidate Jurisdictional Response and Opening Brief,” seeking to file a single brief containing both its jurisdictional response and its substantive appellate arguments on January 9,

2023. We grant appellants’ motion.

However, if appellants do not file its consolidated brief on January 9, 2023 or seek an extension to file its brief

, appellants’ jurisdictional response to our December 29, 2022 order is still due in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, January 9, 2023

. No further extensi ons will be granted on the jurisdictional response.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Terry Adams

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ January 5, 2023

___