alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015392EN.01000601.xml

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/6

---

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMISSION PROPOSALS

(2015/C 392/05)

List of withdrawn proposals

| Document | Inter-institutional procedure | Title |
| --- | --- | --- |
| COM(1998) 0637 | — | Proposal for a Council Decision on the Representation and Position Taking of the Community at International Level in the context of Economic and Monetary Union |

Document

Inter-institutional procedure

Title

COM(1998) 0637

—

Proposal for a Council Decision on the Representation and Position Taking of the Community at International Level in the context of Economic and Monetary Union

---
#### MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC., National Trailer Convoy, Inc. and Transit Homes, Inc. v. EWING MOBILE HOMES, INC.

No. 44260.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 13, 1967.

Donald B. Morrison, Overstreet, Kuyken-dall, Perry & Phillips, Harold D. Miller, Jr., Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, for appellants.

H. H. Whitworth, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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

Each of the undersigned officers of Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 fairly presents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the period indicated.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                    |  |                                                                                    
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | INCOME OPPORTUNITY INVESTORS, INC.
|                        |  |                                   
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  | By:                                |  | /s/ Daniel J. Moos                                                                 
|                        |  |                                    |  | Daniel J. Moos                                                                     
|                        |  |                                    |  | President and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                
|                        |  |                                   
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  | By:                                |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher                                                               
|                        |  |                                    |  | Gene S. Bertcher                                                                   
|                        |  |                                    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,264,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,377,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,635,792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,367,629
<PP&E>                                       2,446,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                 896,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,952,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          824,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,259,399
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,868,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,952,717
<SALES>                                      8,854,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,854,256
<CGS>                                        3,895,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,085,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                763,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                   202,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            561,459
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   561,459
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
Back to Contents Data 1: U.S. Exports of Fuel Ethanol (Thousand Barrels)

Sourcekey

M_EPOOXE_EEX_NUSZ00_MBBL

Date

U.S. Exports of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

Jan-2010 324

Feb-2010 519

Mar-2010 1153

Apr-2010 973

May-2010 414

Jun-2010 387

Jul-2010 603

Aug-2010 707

Sep-2010 929

Oct-2010 834

Nov-2010 930

Dec-2010 1717

Jan-2011 1364

Feb-2011 1425

Mar-2011 2003

Apr-2011 2865

May-2011 1743

Jun-2011 1604

Jul-2011 3036

Aug-2011 1246

Sep-2011 2525

Oct-2011 2895

Nov-2011 3634

Dec-2011 4117

Jan-2012 1819

Feb-2012 1785

Mar-2012 1992

Apr-2012 1775

May-2012 1397

Jun-2012 1410

Jul-2012 1519

Aug-2012 1206

Sep-2012 1191

Oct-2012 1284

Nov-2012 965

Dec-2012 1313

Jan-2013 1518

Feb-2013 1017

Mar-2013 1312

Apr-2013 967

May-2013 952

Jun-2013 796

Jul-2013 830

Aug-2013 1182

Sep-2013 1299

Oct-2013 1206
Nov-2013 2134

Dec-2013 1525

Jan-2014 2054

Feb-2014 1605

Mar-2014 2139

Apr-2014 1585

May-2014 1263

Jun-2014 1431

Jul-2014 1600

Aug-2014 1292

Sep-2014 1354

Oct-2014 1888

Nov-2014 2166

Dec-2014 1798
Fw: Revised Ch. 7 for OMB 

 12/16/2011 03:10 PM 

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Revised Ch 7. 

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 03:10 PM 

----- 

From: Amanda CurryBrown/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Christine Davis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Amy 

Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia 

Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/16/2011 03:07 PM 

Subject: Revised Ch. 7 for OMB 

Hi Bob, 

The attached can be sent to OMB - it addresses their comments on Ch. 7 

from the call earlier, as well as the ones Cortney sent. 

Amanda 

Amanda Curry Brown 

OAQPS/HEID/AEG 

919.541.3808 

CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov

Chapter 7_StatutoryandExecutiveOrderAnalyses_1216 v2.docx
257 La. 984

#### ELITE HOMES, INCORPORATED v. Dorothy L. YOUNGBLOOD, Wife of and Harold M. HERRMANN, et al.

No. 51170.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1971.

In re: Dorothy L. Youngblood, wife of Harold M. Herrmann, and Harold M. Herr-mann applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 242 So.2d 614.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted October 8, 2009*

Decided October 9, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

                   RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

                              TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐1905

JOHNATHAN M. COURSEY,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

BRAD SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:07‐cv‐01123‐MMM‐JAG

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

Johnathan Coursey, a Peoria resident, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against the City of Peoria, the Peoria police department, and two Peoria police officers

alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights related to a warrantless entry of his

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐1905 Page 2

home and subsequent arrest.  The district court dismissed the City of Peoria and the Peoria

police department from the suit and later granted summary judgment in favor of the

officers.

Coursey appeals, but we cannot discern any legal argument in his submission.

Although we construe pro se filings liberally, pro se litigants must follow procedural rules.

See Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

28 requires that the appellant’s brief present “contentions and the reasons for them, with

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” FED. R.

APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).  As we have explained, “a brief must contain an argument consisting of

more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Anderson

v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).

Coursey’s brief consists only of a cursory factual narrative and a short list of

questions about the facts of the case.  Coursey makes no reference to the district court’s

reasoning, cites no legal authority, and, in short, makes no argument.

DISMISSED.
#### Warren George CAMPBELL, a minor, by and through his guardian and next best friend, John J. Campbell, Sr., and Josephine Campbell, individually, and as parents of Warren George Campbell, Petitioners, v. Bert FRIEDMAN and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 71-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                                  Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           Name                                  Jurisdiction of Organization
---------------------------------                ----------------------------
<S>                                              <C>
Palm Harbor Finance Corporation                             Texas
Palm Harbor G.P., Inc.                                      Nevada
Standard Casualty Company                                   Texas
Energy Efficient Housing, Inc.                              Nevada
Better Homes Systems, Inc.                                  Washington
Palm Harbor Investments, Inc.                               Nevada
Palm Harbor Holding, Inc.                                   Nevada
Standard Insurance Agency, Inc.                             Texas
CountryPlace Mortgage, Ltd.                                 Texas
Palm Harbor Homes I, L.P.                                   Texas
Western Insurance Managers, Inc.                            Texas
First Home Mortgage Corporation                             Georgia
Freedom Homes, Inc.                                         Arizona
Palm Harbor Insurance Agency, Inc.                          New Mexico
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RASHID EL MALIK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-55322 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-05085-FMO-AS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 31, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: BEA and BADE, Circuit Judges, and McCALLA,*** District Judge.

Rashid El Malik, a disabled veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals from the 

district court’s dismissal of his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action pursuant 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). El Malik proceeded pro se in the 

district court and we appointed counsel on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 

F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003), and affirm. 

1. The district court properly dismissed El Malik’s FTCA claim for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act

(“VJRA”). The VJRA jurisdictionally barred El Malik’s claims. See 38 U.S.C.

§ 511(a). As alleged in the second amended complaint, El Malik’s claims were 

premised on delays of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) in processing 

his claims for home-adaptation benefits and in providing those benefits. Resolving 

El Malik’s claims would require the district court to “determine whether the VA 

acted properly in handling [El Malik’s] request for benefits,” and thus, § 511(a) 

bars jurisdiction over those claims. Tunac v. United States, 897 F.3d 1197, 1202 

(9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 

1025 (9th Cir. 2012)). 

2. El Malik contends on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his 

FTCA claim without leave to amend because, liberally construed, the operative 

complaint alleges the VA negligently supervised a third-party contractor who 

performed home-adaption work. No fair reading of the complaint reflects any 

negligent-supervision theory of liability. Nor did El Malik oppose dismissal in the 
3 

district court on the grounds that the operative complaint alleged such a negligence 

theory. Because El Malik’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss did 

not argue that dismissal was unwarranted because he meant to allege a negligentsupervision claim, any such argument is forfeited. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 

1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that 

are raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2017265EN.01017501.xml

| 11.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/175 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/175

---

P8_TA(2015)0255

Scientific and technological cooperation with India: renewal of the agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 July 2015 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (05872/2015 — C8-0074/2015 — 2014/0293(NLE))

(Consent)

(2017/C 265/33)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (05872/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (05872/2015),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2002/648/EC of 25 June 2002 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2002/648/EC of 25 June 2002 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (1),

1

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0074/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0074/2015),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), Rule 108(7) and Rule 50(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), Rule 108(7) and Rule 50(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0179/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0179/2015),

| 1. | Gives its consent to renewal of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to renewal of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of India. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of India.

---

(1)  OJ L 213, 9.8.2002, p. 29.

1

---
Exhibit 32

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 of Cooperative Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.



| |  |     |  |                                      
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Todd L. Sammons                  
| |  |     |  | Todd L. Sammons                      
| |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Interim  
| |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 30, 2009
251 La. 680

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Kenneth HENLEY v. Wingate WHITE, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 49012.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1968.

In re: Kenneth Henley applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application is denied. Considering the return of the District Attorney, the applicant has no right to be released from confinement and no right to habeas corpus.
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with Annual Report of Comtech Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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: March 14, 2008



By:

/s/ Jeffrey KangName:

Jeffrey KangTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
#### CITY PLUMBING COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 67-946.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1968.

Bates & Taylor, Miami, for appellant.

Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the cross-claimant below, City Plumbing Company, from an adverse summary final decree in favor of United Bonding Insurance Company, as surety on a construction bond.

Appellant furnished materials and performed labor under its contract with the Everglades Development Corporation, which corporation was subsequently declared bankrupt and is not a party hereto. Upon default by Everglades, City Plumbing sought recovery under the performance bond written by appellee. Before filing answer to appellant’s cross-claim, appellee moved for and was granted summary judgment.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is the contention that the granting of a summary judgment was improper, since there exists a genuine issue as to some material fact. We agree and reverse.

The motion does not specify the ground upon which appellee relies as a basis for the granting of a summary judgment, other than the bare assertion that “there are no material issues of fact.” However, appellee’s brief raises the point that § 84.231, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., requires any action against the contractor or against the surety to be commenced within “one year from the performance of the labor or completion of delivery of the materials and supplies”. The only evidence offered in the record on appeal is the deposition of John W. Albury, Corporate Secretary of City Plumbing Company. A thorough examination of his testimony, in the light most favorable to the appellant,1 reveals that the date upon which performance under the contract was completed by City Plumbing is inconclusive *258at best. We are of the opinion that ap-pellee failed to carry its burden of proving the non-existence of any issue of material fact.2

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

BARKDULL, J., dissents.

1

. Chapman v. Tison, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 605.

2

. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Robinson v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 718.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

R. BRIAN SHOBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

ROSALEE MARIE SHOBER, DECEASED,

Petitioner

v.

ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER; ST. 

JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH NETWORK; 

CAROL A. GREENBERG, EXECUTRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT GREENBERG, 

M.D.; MOHAMED F. SOUMAKIEH, M.D.; 

BORNEMANN HEALTH CORPORATION 

A/K/A BORNEMANN SURGERY 

ASSOCIATES, A/K/A BORNEMANN 

ANESTHESIA,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 277 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.