alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023235EN.01003202.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Lyubetskaya v Council

(Case T-556/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 235/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sviatlana Lyubetskaya (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and S. Saez Moreno, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for 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), in so far as those acts concern her.

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Ms Sviatlana Lyubetskaya to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sviatlana Lyubetskaya to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT
      OF 2002





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





This
      29th
      day of March, 2007.




/s/
      David D. Stovall


Chief
      Executive Officer




/s/
      Annette Banks


Chief
      Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

[MMAA104000]

Proposed Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Activities on the Mid- 
and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD) for 
the Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical Activities, Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas, Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).

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

    Description: The ROD documents BOEM's selection of Alternative B of 
the PEIS. The PEIS was prepared to assess environmental impacts of 
authorizing geological and geophysical (G&G) survey activities in the 
Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas between 2012 and 2020. 
The PEIS covers G&G activities conducted under BOEM's oil and gas, 
renewable energy, and marine minerals programs. The purpose of the 
proposed action addressed by the PEIS is to gather state-of-the-
practice data about the ocean bottom and subsurface of the Area of 
Interest. These data are needed to inform government and business 
decisions regarding resource availability and use. The PEIS evaluates 
and the ROD discusses three potential alternative actions by BOEM: 
Alternative A--to authorize G&G activities with time-area closures and 
other mitigation measures; Alternative B--to authorize G&G activities 
with mitigation measures in addition to those provided in Alternative 
A; and Alternative C--no action or the status quo.
    Record of Availability: To obtain a single printed or CD copy of 
the ROD for the Final PEIS, you may contact BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS 
Region, Public Information Office (GM 335A), 1201 Elmwood Park 
Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). An 
electronic copy of the ROD is available on BOEM's Internet Web site at 
http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/GOMR/GandG.aspx or at 
http://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on the ROD, you 
may contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, 
Office of Environment (GM 623E), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70123-2394, or by email at ggeis@boem.gov. You may also 
contact Mr. Goeke by telephone at 504-736-3233.

    Authority: This NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 
CFR 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. [1988]).

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Walter D. Cruickshank,
Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-17386 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
#### David Ray WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 24, 1977.

Thomas G. Hall, Fernandina Beach, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was tried and convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny and with larceny of an air jack. He has raised two points on appeal for this court to consider. The first is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction and the second is ineffective assistance of counsel. As to the first point, we hold there was substantial evidence presented at trial to convict the defendant of the crimes charged. The second point on appeal, ineffective assistance of counsel, may not be properly raised before this court for the first time on direct appeal when it was not ruled upon by the trial court. *State v. Barber,*301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

However, this opinion should not be construed as prohibiting defendant from raising this argument before the trial court by the proper vehicle of a Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Order filed, August 19, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00567

- CV

____________ JOHN D. GUIMOND AND MARY GRACE GUIMOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF NICOLAS R. GUIMON D, A MINOR , Appellant

V.

INTEGRATED G ENETICS LAB CORP SPE CIALTY TESTING GROUP , ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 30393



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 16, 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker , the official court repor ter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
#### Sammie Lee WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-256.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Richmond

#### Haupt *v.*Tebault.

January 7, 1897.

1. New *Trials*— Payment *of costs.*— Where a new trial has been granted upon condition of paying the costs of the former trial, as provided by section 3542 of the Code, it is sufficient if the costs are paid or tendered at any time before the order granting the new trial has been set aside, and after such tender or payment it is error to rescind the order for the new trial.

Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Norfolk, rendered November 3, 1894, in an action of assumpsit wherein the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant.

*Reversed.*

The opinion states the case.

*E. R.*Bawd, *Jr.,*for the plaintiff in error.

*W. JST. Portlodk*and *W. A.*Ross, for the defendant in error.

Buchanan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A new trial was granted in this case. The costs were not paid at or before the next term of the court. At a subsequent term, the plaintiff, against whom the new trial had been granted, moved the court to set aside the order granting it because the defendant had not paid the costs as required by law. Thereupon the defendant tendered the costs of the former trial. The court sustained the motion and rescinded the *185order for a new trial. This action of the court is assigned as error.

Where a new trial is granted for causes other than the misconduct of the opposite party, section 3542 of the Code provides that the party to whom the new trial is granted, shall, previous to such new trial, pay the costs of the former trial. It also provides that ‘ ‘if the party who is to pay the costs of the former trial, fail to pay the same at or before the next term after the new trial is granted, the court may, upon motion of the opposite party, set aside the order granting it, and proceed to judgment on the verdict, or award execution for said costs, as may seem to it best. ’5

The object of the former provision is to make the pre-payment of such costs a condition precedent to a new trial, unless waived by the opposite party. *Central Land Co.*v. *Obenc*hain, 92 Va. 150. The object of the latter provision is to secure their prompt payment. If the party whose duty it is to pay the costs fail to do so at or before the next lerm of the court after the new trial is granted, he runs the risk of having the order granting it rescinded, or of having an execution awarded against him for such costs. If, however, the costs-are paid or tendered before the order granting the new trial has been set aside, or án execution awarded for them, the object of the latter provision of the section has been accomplished, and the condition upon which the court was authorized to award an execution, or to set aside the order for a new trial has ceased to exist.

The court therefore erred in rescinding the order for a new trial, and for such error its judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to it to receive the costs tendered, and, when so received, to proceed with the cause under its order for a new trial.

*Reversed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7245

ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VALLEY GUN SMITH; MELVIN ABRAMS; VALLEY GUN

SHOP; TOWSON JERRERSONIAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv01747-AMD)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Junior Wardrick appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Wardrick v. Valley Gun Smith, No. 1:07-ct-01747-AMD (D. Md.

July 31, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter  ended  September 30,
2003 of the Company (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                       /s/ Robert R. Galvin
                                       --------------------
                                       Robert R. Galvin
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       November 14, 2003
```
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3931

___________

Leon Henry Carter, III, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

CWF Solutions, LLC; Mark Novak, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2010

 Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Leon Carter appeals from the order of the District Court1

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The District Court concluded that Carter

failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim, and the court declined to exercise

jurisdiction over Carter’s state-law claims. After careful de novo review, we affirm

for the reasons given by the District Court. See Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc., 601
-2-

F.3d 852, 853 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the district court’s dismissal for

failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and affording

the plaintiff all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those allegations); see

also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that pro se

complaints are to be liberally construed but noting that "they still must allege

sufficient facts to support the claims advanced").

______________________________
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

     I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)      The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
              December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
              Commission on the date hereof (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.


                           By:   /s/ JEFFREY A. LEDDY
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 Name:  Jeffrey A. Leddy
                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
                                        (Principal Executive Officer and
                                        Principal Financial Officer)
                                 Date:  March 29, 2004


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT MONTIE RAINES, a/k/a Marty Raines, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CR-92-96, CA-95-243-2) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Montie Raines, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and order denying leave to file a brief in excess ofthe page limitations. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 3 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHERRONE BURLESON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SPRINT PCS GROUP,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-6261 (D.C. No. 02-CV-1000-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and MURPHY , Circuit Judge.
Sherrone Burleson petitions the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit for an emergency stay of a trial set for October 14, 2003, pending her interlocutory appeal of an order of the district court. We initi ally conclude that Ms. Burleson has failed to establish an “emergency” requiring th e consideration of only one judge. See 10th Cir. R. 8.3.1 We note, however, that a pretrial order regarding d iscovery is not

immediately appealable as a final order. Graham v. Gray , 827 F.2d 679, 681 (10th Cir. 1987). Thus, if that issue had been rai sed in her notice of appeal, it would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. -2- In order to demonstrate her entitlement to a stay, Ms. Burleson must first establish our jurisdiction over her appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 8.1, 18.1; Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp. , 993 F.2d 755, 756-57, 760 (10th Cir. 1993), aff’d , 511 U.S. 863 (1994). The record indicates that s he has not paid the appellate filing fee. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e); 10th Cir. R. 3.3. According to her motion for stay, Ms. Burleson seek s interlocutory appeal from two orders: (1) an order denying her request that the district court judge recuse herself for bias and (2) an order denying Ms . Burleson’s request to extend the discovery deadline in which to identify expert and lay witnesses and exhibits for trial. But a review of her notice of appeal re veals that she has appealed only from the order denying recusal. U.S. Dist. Ct. R. Doc. 123. We therefore address only the issue raised in the notice of appeal. 1 We have jurisdiction only over appeals from final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, or certain kinds of interlocutory orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292. “An order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory and is, therefore, not immediately appealable.” Nichols v. Alley , 71 F.3d 347, 350 (10th Cir. 1995).-3-

Because we have no jurisdiction over the issue rais ed in the notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal and deny the motion for stay as moot. Even if we were to designate Ms. Burleson’s notice of appeal on the issue of recusal as a petition for a writ of mandamus, see id. ; In re Bennett, 283 B.R. 308, 321 (10th Cir. B.A.P. 2002), we would still de ny relief. Adverse rulings are ordinarily insufficient to justify recusal. Nichols , 71 F.3d at 351. The appeal is DISMISSED and the motion for emergency stay is DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
IICHAE

L fi, FlUC E _^^ . -.- .



# mo f tft r © n

2 4 . 201 0 «««*i-"."^*aa« , wtr ^ *i , v*/!^-—IT W » I^Ht vSa » Stml T 

### 5-l40 e

Mr . 1 ^ LaHoo d^ ' Secmai y o f

Transportario n '= ' ; < —— , U . S Departrnra

t o f Tmnsporttio n ^ Hfi^ ^ ! 200 He w JerM y Ave . S E ~ p ~"^£3 ^ WmUngtoiu D

C 2059 0 -C" % ' Dea r m - _ I a mwrian g t o ^pres s ray suppor t o f a n ^^licatio n fo

r funding sii«nine db y U

w Delaware Coj® ^ g ' Airpor t AiKh^t y under

Hi e USDOT' s SmaJ

I Communit

y Ai r ^rvic e Developmen

t grant pro-am . 1 a miwar e tha

t th e Dclai^^r

e C^ra ^ Airpo l Author^ ' dwire s t o us e ttie fimdrng t o pofor mstud w for th e d^mninatio ao f

potoiSa l ai r

servic e l o ttd fromth e Mtcncic/DeUiwar e Count y ar«i^ a s we

U a s t o devek ^ n fflarkrti^ str^e ^ fo r tW s jdan . Detowttr e Count y Repona J Afrpw l i s mintegra l par t o f A e regional are ai

n whic h i t ^rves . Th e eas t portio D o f Inian ar^resente d^ m

y osngressional lisorict , Muncii^Delaww c Coimt y i n particilar , ht e bee

n ejctrcrael

y har dhi t b y tb e los s ^ majo

r ra^ufi^wing entities . Th e are are|)i^cn ^ on e 0 f tti^ highes t

unerii^!oymemm^ s i n tims^t e an dcontinu e t o straggl e t o ttcbieve ui dmaintu n econiHiu c stability . I strw^ y believ e ^t M feiding of

thi s nK^ues

i woul denabl e te Delawar e Coun ^ AiiifXJf t Authorit y Ot e op^>Tttmit

y t o off acominm^ia

l passen ^ ^rvic e and»

o greatl y enhanc e i ^ cajabili y to attra; t

potential induWM

l clicnK . thereb y aidin g effort s t o restore much-neste deconomi c itiiearra . B^aa ^ thi s n^^^ t

fo r ftmding reflec t

* c basi c p^wpos

e of it e toill Communit

y A n Servic e Develqpi^n t

i^^ram , 1 woul dn^Kctfiiti y j^i ^ ttitti you giv e tfiis i^plicati^ i for fimding yow ' mos t thot^tfii l m ^ seriou s consiitoration . Yo u sa y dirro t

any iW|KJi» e o r

qu^on s mm

y De^l y DisW

W D^Wor , Ki

mBram ^ « 10

7 W . ChartwSt. , Muncie,IN47305jOr« t krmit«inrtu^ail.hon^„gov . TTian k yo u fc you r kindcoosito«iO T o f

thi s \m y importan

t an dworthwhil e requ^t . 

# ( L ^

S o ^ District , Indian a kJ b cc : Stev e Lesch . ExKiitiv t Direclof , Deiawart

Count ) Regiona

l .^Ur^rt