alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004106EN.01008402.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/84

---

Action brought on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-102/04)

(2004/C 106/165)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as it revises and fixes his classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000 and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and in so far as the financial effects of that decision are limited to the date of 5 October 1995; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as it revises and fixes his classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000 and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and in so far as the financial effects of that decision are limited to the date of 5 October 1995;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is challenging the decision of 14 April 2003 by the appointing authority revising and fixing his recruitment classification at Grade A5, step 3, on 1 May 1992, revising and fixing his subsequent classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000, and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and limiting the financial effects thereof to 5 October 1995.

The pleas in law and arguments submitted are similar to those in Case T-402/03 Katalagarianakis v Commission (OJ 2004 C 35, p. 17).

Katalagarianakis

Commission

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 10 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 10

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a 
fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of 
                           that fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mr. Gallagher) submitted the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a 
fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of 
                           that fiscal year.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. A Member of Congress may not receive a compensation 
for service as a Member of Congress during a fiscal year unless both 
Houses of Congress have agreed to an identical concurrent resolution on 
the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal 
year.
    ``Section 2. This article shall apply with respect to fiscal years 
which begin after this article becomes a valid part of the 
Constitution.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC (the "Fund") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of 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 Fund.



Date: August 11, 2005     By:  /s/ Robert E. Swanson
                               -------------------------------------
                               Robert E. Swanson
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
                               (principal executive officer)


Date: August 11, 2005     By:  /s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
                               -------------------------------------
                               Kathleen P. McSherry
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               (principal financial and accounting officer)

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy L Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a
separate disclosure document.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 95 

Designating March 22, 2017, as ‘‘National Rehabilitation Counselors 

Appreciation Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating March 22, 2017, as ‘‘National Rehabilitation 

Counselors Appreciation Day’’. 

Whereas rehabilitation counselors conduct assessments, provide counseling, support families, and plan and implement rehabilitation programs for individuals in need of 

rehabilitation; 

Whereas the purpose of professional organizations for rehabilitation counseling and education is to promote the improvement of rehabilitation services available to individuals with disabilities through quality education for counselors and rehabilitation research; 

Whereas various professional organizations have vigorously 

advocated for up-to-date education and training and the 

maintenance of professional standards in the field of rehabilitation counseling and education, including— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 95 IS 

(1) the National Rehabilitation Association; 

(2) the Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Association; 

(3) the National Council on Rehabilitation Education; 

(4) the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association; 

(5) the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association; 

(6) the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor 

Certification; 

(7) the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; and 

(8) the Council on Rehabilitation Education; 

Whereas, in March of 1983, the president of the National 

Council on Rehabilitation Education testified before the 

Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on 

Education and Labor of the House of Representatives 

and was instrumental in bringing to the attention of Congress the need for qualified rehabilitation counselors; and 

Whereas credentialed rehabilitation counselors provide a higher quality of service to individuals in need of rehabilitation and the development of an accreditation system for 

rehabilitation counselors supports the continued education of rehabilitation counselors: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates March 22, 2017, as ‘‘National 

3 Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day’’; and 

4 (2) commends— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 95 IS 

1 (A) rehabilitation counselors for their dedi2 cation and hard work in providing counseling to 

3 individuals in need of rehabilitation; and 

4 (B) professional organizations for their ef5 forts in assisting individuals who require reha6 bilitation. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 1 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, 
during the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress the Speaker of the House and 
the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 
jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
the Minority Leader of the Senate,

              

 may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to 
assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 3, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1647

LILI AGNES DJEUKAM TASSI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: April 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, 

PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery,

Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lili Agnes Djeukam Tassi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of Tassi’s applications for adjustment of status 

and an 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) (2012) waiver of inadmissibility, and 

denying Tassi’s motion for remand. 

Upon review of Tassi’s claims and the administrative 

record, we deny the petition for review. The agency’s finding 

that Tassi is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) 

(2012) is clearly supported by Tassi’s admissions that she lied 

before the immigration judge and that she submitted a fraudulent 

document in support of her claims, thus distinguishing her case 

from our recent decision in Xing Yang Yang v. Holder, 770 F.3d 

294, 305 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The record does not reveal evidence

. . . that Yang made knowing and deliberate misrepresentations 

to gain an immigration benefit.”). We also conclude that the 

Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tassi’s motion to 

remand. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) 

(setting forth standard of review). 

We therefore deny the petition substantially for the 

reasons stated by the Board. In re: Tassi (B.I.A. Apr. 23, 

2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,Russell C. Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cellu TissueHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended May 25, 2006  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   July 10, 2006 | /s/ Russell C. Taylor                 |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                 | Russell C. Taylor                     |
|                                 | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Vacated and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00428-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.S., A CHILD, 

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-57633

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 4, 2014.

On, February 27, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to set aside or vacate 

the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted.
2

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment signed March 4, 2014, and remand the 

cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’

agreement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.
A division of the American Chemical Society

Inventory Expert Service Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870

 Fax: 614-447-3747

 E-mail: answers@cas.org

 Web: www.cas.org/products/client/

CAS • 2540 Olentangy River Road • P.O. Box 3343 • Columbus, Ohio 43210-0334 • USA
#### James H. HUPP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Hon. S. Mark JOHNSON, Judge of the Circuit Court, State of Utah, Davis County, Bountiful Department, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 16603.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 28, 1980.

*254L. E. Richardson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Craig L. Barlow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

STEWART, Justice:

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for an extraordinary writ to require a Circuit Court judge to dismiss a drunk driving complaint, see § 41-6-44 U.C.A. (1953), as amended, after the judge had accepted guilty pleas on three other citations issued at the same time for driving (a) without a license (§ 41-2-2); (b) without a registration certificate (§ 41-1-18), and (c) without a safety sticker (§ 41-6-158).

The’only issue on appeal is whether the citations were part of a “single criminal episode.” Section 76-1-403 bars prosecution of subsequent charges after one or more charges arising out of a single criminal episode have been disposed of by trial or guilty plea. Section 76-1-401 provides:

> “Single criminal episode” defined— Joinder of offenses and defendants. — In this part unless the context requires a different definition, “single criminal episode” means all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective.

Hupp takes the position that the “driving” was closely related to and “incident” to the “single criminal objective” of driving his car illegally.

We reject the contention that § 76-1-401 is applicable. The citations charge separate, independent offenses which were committed at different times and were entirely unrelated to each other. The four offenses were not committed to accomplish a “single criminal objective.”

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


   

    

  Dated June 16, 2022

  

     

  

  
  

     

   
  AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SENIOR

   
  

     

   
  SECURED TERM LOAN AGREEMENT

   
  
    
      Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska (as Administrative Agent and
        Lender), and Seritage Growth Properties, L.P. (as Borrower) and Seritage Growth Properties (as Parent and Guarantor), under that certain. Secured Term Loan Agreement dated as of July 31, 2018 (the Loan Agreement), mutually agree to the following
        Amendment No. 3 to the Loan Agreement:

      (1)   Notwithstanding anything
        to the contrary contained in Section 6.05(c), the Parent, the Borrower and their respective Subsidiaries shall be permitted without the consent of Administrative Agent to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of such Person's property (including but
        not limited to Properties or equity interests of any Subsidiary) to unaffiliated third parties for no less than fair market value; provided, that (a) Borrower deposits all Net Proceeds received by the Parent, the Borrower or any of their
        Subsidiaries in respect of such sale, transfer or disposition into a Controlled Account and (b) the use of such Net Proceeds shall be subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement, including but not limited to Section 6.04 (Restricted Payments) and Section 6.07 (Investments, Loans) thereof.

      In all other respects, the Loan Agreement remains unchanged.

     

   
   

  

   

  

  
    
      


  

   

  

  

  June 16 2022

   
  

     

   
  

     

   
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

   
  Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska

   
  

     

   
  	
          By:

        	
          /s/ Brian Snover

        	 
	
          Name:

        	
          Brian Snover

        	 
	
          Title:

        	
          Senior Vice President

        	 


   
  

     

   
  

     

   
  Seritage Growth Properties, L.P. and Seritage Growth Properties

   
  

     

   
  	
          By:

        	
          /s/ Matthew Fernand

        	 
	
          Name:

        	
          Matthew Fernand

        	 
	
          Title:

        	
          Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JER Investors
Trust Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Michael McGillis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 11, 2009



/s/ J. Michael McGillisName:

J. Michael McGillisTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2739

___________________________

Miguel Angel Bautista-Lucas

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: March 30, 2015

Filed: April 6, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Miguel Angel Bautista-Lucas petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld an immigration judge’s

decision to deny Bautista’s motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind an in

absentia removal order. After careful review, we conclude the denial of the motion

to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087,
1089-90 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2011** 

**- NM** 
**- 053** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-13-00165-CV

Trial Court No. 9,140

Susan Jackson Holden and Terry Holden

Vs.

Charles Lyle Holden, as the Independent Executor of the Estate of Rosie

Eunice Holden, Deceased

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Clerk's record

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Reporter's record

Clerk's record

Filing

Indigent

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$10.00

$2.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$877.50

$187.00

$100.00

$25.00

$50.00

John G Meazell

JOHN G. MEAZELL

John Meazell

John Meazell

John Meazell

John Meazell P.C.

John Meazell P.C.

Defendants

Laura Pate

John Meazell

John Meazell

John Meazell

TOTAL: $1,301.50

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 7th day of April 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY