alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE IX

EMPLOYMENT

EMPLOYMENT

Article 150

(ex Article 130 TEC)

(ex Article 130 TEC)

The Council, acting by a simple majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall establish an Employment Committee with advisory status to promote coordination between Member States on employment and labour market policies. The tasks of the Committee shall be:

| — | to monitor the employment situation and employment policies in the Member States and the Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

to monitor the employment situation and employment policies in the Member States and the Union,

| — | without prejudice to Article 240, to formulate opinions at the request of either the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative, and to contribute to the preparation of the Council proceedings referred to in Article 148. |
| --- | --- |

—

without prejudice to Article 240, to formulate opinions at the request of either the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative, and to contribute to the preparation of the Council proceedings referred to in Article 148.

In fulfilling its mandate, the Committee shall consult management and labour.

Each Member State and the Commission shall appoint two members of the Committee.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Sun Network Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, T. Joseph Coleman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

         Dated:  November 19, 2003


                                                /s/ T. Joseph Coleman
                                                ---------------------------
                                                T. Joseph Coleman
                                                Chief Executive Officer
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XXII

TOURISM

TOURISM

Article 195

1.   The Union shall complement the action of the Member States in the tourism sector, in particular by promoting the competitiveness of Union undertakings in that sector.

To that end, Union action shall be aimed at:

| (a) | encouraging the creation of a favourable environment for the development of undertakings in this sector; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

encouraging the creation of a favourable environment for the development of undertakings in this sector;

| (b) | promoting cooperation between the Member States, particularly by the exchange of good practice. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

promoting cooperation between the Member States, particularly by the exchange of good practice.

2.   The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish specific measures to complement actions within the Member States to achieve the objectives referred to in this Article, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN DEJESUS TOSCANO REYES,

AKA Jesus Adrian Reyes,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72246

Agency No. A095-808-646

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

On January 29, 2015, the court granted the government’s unopposed motion

to hold proceedings in abeyance. On April 2, 2015, the government informed the

court that Adrian Dejesus Toscano Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, is not a

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
candidate for prosecutorial discretion, and requested that this case move forward. 

The abeyance is hereby lifted.

Toscano Reyes petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Toscano Reyes conceded before the agency that he was removable under 8

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present without being admitted or paroled,

and he does not challenge removability on that ground. Because he is removable

on this ground and does not contend that he is eligible for any form of relief from

removal, we need not reach his contentions regarding his second ground of

removability. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a

general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the

decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation

marks omitted)); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a

petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief). 

We grant the motions to withdraw as counsel of record filed by Elsa I.

Martinez.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 No. 10-72246
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, K.M. MCDONALD, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DEMETRIUS E. JOHNSON

GAS TURBINE SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (MECHANICAL)

THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400335

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 20 May 2014.

Military Judge: CDR Michael J. Luken, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: LT Jonathan Hawkins, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

16 April 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 850

EX PA R TE K EV I N LE O LA U R Y A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. W 9 4 - 4 4 4 7 1 - T( A) I N T HE 2 8 3 RD DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM DALLAS CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provi s i o n s o f Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) . Applicant wa s convicted of reta liationand sentenc ed to tenyear s’ imprisonment. The Eig hthCourt of Appea ls affirme d his conviction. Lau ry v . S tate , 100 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. App. - El Paso, 2003, no pet.) Applicant conte nds that his judgme nt incorre ctly ref lects that a $500 fine was assessed. T he trial court f

ound that a fine was imposed when Ap p l icant wa s initi ally place d on defe rre dLAURY - 2

a dju dic atio n co mmunit

y su pe rv isi on , but the tr ia l court did no t ve rb a lly

ind ic ate that a

fi ne wo uld be imposed whe n he asse ssed p u n ishment after Applicant’s c ommunity supervision was subsequently

revoke d. The judgment ref lects t hat a $500 fine was assessed. A pplicant is entitled to relief. Tay lor

v . S tate , 131 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Relief is g rante d. The judgment in Ca use No. W94-44471-T in the 283rd J udicial District Court of Dallas County

is refor med to delete r efe renc e to a f ine being imposed.
Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 27, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Cagle’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended March 28, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Mark M. Ham IV, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Mark M. Ham IV                                    |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark M. Ham IV                                        |   |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal Accounting  Officer)                       |   |
| Date: June 11,  2009                             |   |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2017

No. 04-16-00633-CR

Gabriel Antonio VALVERDE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4166W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with 

portions of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-

20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, 

no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The 

State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a pro 

se brief.

If the appellant desires to request the complete appellate record, he must request the 

record in writing within ten days from the date of this order. If the appellant desires to file a pro 

se brief, he must do so within thirty days from the date of this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 

177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED 

that the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending 

further order of the court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHILIP VONVILLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 227 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHILIP VONVILLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 228 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, 

Application for Release, Motion to Expedite, and Applications for Leave to Amend are 

DENIED.
April 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HERBERT RAY WILSON, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00015-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Blaze Vaskoski et al., Appellants, v Margaret A. Campbell, Appellant, and Robert J. Maracle et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs to plaintiffs and defendant Margaret A. Campbell, motion denied, complaint and cross claim reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Doyle Courier Service for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this case, which arose out of a motor vehicle collision. Doyle had the burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it should have judgment as a matter of law *(see, Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau,*71 NY2d 420; *Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065; *see also,*CPLR 3212 [b]). That burden was not met. Neither its attorney’s affirmation nor the description of the accident in the police accident report was based on personal knowledge *(see, Egan v Federated Dept. Stores,*108 AD2d 718; *Casey v Tierno,*127 AD2d 727). Moreover, plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise questions of fact concerning whether the conduct of defendant Maracle, driver of the Doyle vehicle, was reasonable under the circumstances *(see, Davis v Best,*131 AD2d 535; *Sciocchetti v Trichilo,*127 AD2d 958).

In addition, the court should not have dismissed the complaint against defendant Maracle nor dismissed defendant Campbell’s cross claim against defendants Doyle Courier Service and Maracle because the relief was not requested by any party *(see, Double A Limousine Serv. v New York, N. Y. Limousine Serv.,*130 AD2d 403). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01013101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/131

---

Article 187

(ex Article 171 TEC)

(ex Article 171 TEC)

The Union may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1458 

To prohibit the Corporation for National and Community Service from removing State offices of the Corporation from States without Congressional 

approval. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself, Mr. TONKO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. COHEN, Ms. 

MOORE, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. POCAN, Ms. OMAR, and Ms. SEWELL of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Corporation for National and Community 

Service from removing State offices of the Corporation 

from States without Congressional approval. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep Community Serv5 ice Local Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1458 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR CLOSURE OF 

2 STATE CNCS OFFICES UNDER CERTAIN CIR3 CUMSTANCES. 

4 Section 196A(a) of the National and Community 

5 Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12651h) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON CLOSURE OF STATE OF8 FICES.—The Corporation may not close a State office re9 quired under subsection (a), where such closure results in 

10 there being no office in such State, unless permitted or 

11 directed to do so by an Act of Congress.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# • StaIIlI'ds fir 

### GIIa'8tll'S of

### IIaZa'lDJs 

### Wasta 53 

# n 45OII8-45IBJ rwmrB,BIII UbJ-IIWA 

### lbtIIr VJ 

### 1111 0f1i:8 of

### MII_ .. t lIII_t 

### has IB:iIlId that 

### IItrtn IIIIIISlI'S of 

### UIIIDlDfBst IBId 

### IIJt iDDI 

### UII 

### '1U'd8n IIDJsIn statllnBlt" 

### III UII 

### nmrest If 

### to 

# m SlIIB:es lIIl1111tD1a1lD'd8n III 

### UBn. IMII111l1U'8!J8S Statss that 

### havB .. OD'ID'1ItBd UII stat8DBIt 

### to I'lItaiI /lllll lIIDI'1IIJBS 

### tIIJsB will 

### havB 

### IIJt yst

### hD'ID'1ItBd ft

### to 101ft 

### at a

### fubJ'B datB. 

### 1W1IV8I'. UII**dBdsIIIIl'1IlJlII'IIi~** 

### wIIItIII' lrllJt 

### to 101 UII statlml1t 

### Is IIIIthIIy " 

### to UII 

### StatB _ UII finn. 

### 11IIS. tIis 

### clB:klst Is**~tDB.** fOOAllCIA C1TAMII I AIIAlaJI STAn C1TAMII WAC113-3m QIIV. IAUJiTI IIAlI AIlAlIC II: IIIAIO lIa1 PART 282

- STAfllAIlDS APPIJ:AIIlE 

# m 1BIIIA11IlS 

### If IIAZARIJlJIm WASlI _ART B. 111 MANHST 

### 1tDERAl RBJDREMENIS -110 &1lIO(1) 

# x 

# • APPENDIX 

# m PART 282 11INIFOIlM RAZARmms WASTE MANHST lDqa 

### IIXIiratiJJ datB: lIIdIU'IIBn discIDsIJ'B statBmll1t 

### ·8700-22 

# -mo x 8711J-22A -1lIO(1) 

## x 

# • rmllllDl' B, BIll - P8gB 1 of1
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14386

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 6:13-cv-00077-BAE-GRS,

6:02-cr-00008-BAE-1

WILLIAM ERIC GREEN,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 15, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

William Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal sua sponte of his 

third motion to vacate as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The district court 

Case: 13-14386 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

issued a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) “Whether Stewart v. United 

States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011), justifies equitable tolling of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)’s one year statute of limitations given Green’s diligent pursuit of his 

claims both pre- and post-Stewart”; and (2) “Whether the Stewart decision itself 

constitutes a new fact that restarts the one year limitations period.” But the

certificate fails to identify an issue of constitutional magnitude. See Spencer v. 

United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We vacate the 

certificate of appealability and remand for the district court to consider what 

claims, if any, in Green’s motion “ma[k]e a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 13-14386 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 2 of 2
##### 



BY-LAWS
OF
A. M. CASTLE & CO.
 As amended December 13, 2007
 ARTICLE I
OFFICES
   ARTICLE II
MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS




---



##### 








---



##### 



th th th th




---



##### 



th th




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
DIRECTORS




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
NOTICES
   ARTICLE V
OFFICERS




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 CERTIFICATES OF STOCK




---



##### 



th




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
INDEMNIFICATION
  nolo contendere




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7839

CHARLES THOMAS WEST,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

CARLTON JOYNER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02191-FL)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Thomas West, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Thomas West seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

West has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED