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 VII

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

CHAPTER 3

APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

Article 117

(ex Article 97 TEC)

(ex Article 97 TEC)

1.   Where there is a reason to fear that the adoption or amendment of a provision laid down by law, regulation or administrative action may cause distortion within the meaning of Article 116, a Member State desiring to proceed therewith shall consult the Commission. After consulting the Member States, the Commission shall recommend to the States concerned such measures as may be appropriate to avoid the distortion in question.

2.   If a State desiring to introduce or amend its own provisions does not comply with the recommendation addressed to it by the Commission, other Member States shall not be required, pursuant to Article 116, to amend their own provisions in order to eliminate such distortion. If the Member State which has ignored the recommendation of the Commission causes distortion detrimental only to itself, the provisions of Article 116 shall not apply.

---
# C_2012326EN.01033701.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

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

C.   DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES

DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES

57.   Declaration by the Italian Republic on the composition of the European Parliament

Declaration by the Italian Republic on the composition of the European Parliament

Italy notes that, pursuant to Articles 10 and 14 of the Treaty on European Union, the European Parliament is to be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens; this representation is to be degressively proportional.

Italy likewise notes that on the basis of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every national of a Member State is a citizen of the Union.

Italy therefore considers that, without prejudice to the decision on the 2009-2014 legislative period, any decision adopted by the European Council, at the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, establishing the composition of the European Parliament, must abide by the principles laid down out in the first subparagraph of Article 14.

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Synvista Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby
      certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2008
      (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                November 14, 2008
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Noah Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.Noah
                Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (principal
                executive officer)







Date:
                November 14, 2008
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Wendy A. MiliciWendy
                A. Milici
              (principal
                financial officer)





A
      signed
      original 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.
11 (to Cov^^ct St Rvvi*/S-a.

^ CI 319

i/f c, RECEIVED IN . COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

l/cll^ STefW> ^ OT15 2015

^!?f©^<W AteiAcosta,Clerk

V '-> * /76778Y

3.00 S^V U2

7J^o
/to /; -To Citify tWvro^ W-13-^^5" JT

Aeykf IftWv 5eKT ftCofv ©i^ MoVic* s£cKmv<^

^>i /76-?~)8y

•x

.z^-a
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00137-CV

2008 CHEVROLET CORVETTE, 

VIN#1G1YY36W585105455,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 51,223

O R D E R

James Tyron Riggs’s motion for rehearing was received and filed on April 4, 

2016. It was sent under a cover letter dated March 28, 2016. Riggs’s motion, however, 

was due March 25, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P 49.1. Accordingly, Riggs’s motion for 

rehearing is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 2

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP.

P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 

51.941(a) (West 2013). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the 

Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of the 

fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees 

owed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion dismissed

Order issued and filed April 14, 2016
TAB 1

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 04/20/2015 3:39:25 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0114 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22003D0114

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 114/2003 of 26 September 2003 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 331 , 18/12/2003 P. 0032 - 0033 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 114/2003

of 26 September 2003

amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 46/2003 of 16 May 2003(1).

(2) Decision No 188 of 10 December 2002 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (E 210 and E 211)(2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 3.63 (Decision No 187) of Annex VI to the Agreement:

"3.64. 32003 D 0306: Decision No 188 of 10 December 2002 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (E 210 and E 211) (OJ L 112, 6.5.2003, p. 12)."

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 188 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 27 September 2003, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 26 September 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

H. S. H. Prinz Nikolaus von Liechtenstein

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.2003, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 112, 6.5.2003, p. 12.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
Research Program staff I learned that there was no study. The letter was

apparently not based on a specific analysis but information already available

to PJM from other analysis. So Jennifer’s claim that it was not available is

not valid because it doesn’t exist. It appears to be part of PJM’s authority

to write such a letter and I don’t know what their analysis requirements are

for such a decision.

Secondly, we had no choice about granting the exemption. The Healthy Air Act

mandates that the exemption be granted if R Paul Smith gets the must run

letter and they did. Jennifer does not mention the mandate in the law in hercomments.

I don’t know if you already knew these things or if they were helpful but if

you need anything else just call.

Diane
# C_2016202EN.01034601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/346 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/346

---

24.   Declaration concerning the legal personality of the European Union

Declaration concerning the legal personality of the European Union

The Conference confirms that the fact that the European Union has a legal personality will not in any way authorise the Union to legislate or to act beyond the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,584,000
<SECURITIES>                                21,922,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,030,000
<PP&E>                                       2,245,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,337,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,992,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,706,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   117,630,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (90,465,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,992,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,302,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,848,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

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

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

 September 29, 2016

p0922

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2016

150972

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150972

COA: 324234

Roscommon CC: 14-007041-FH

ROBERT ALLEN BAKER a/k/a

JOHN FRANCIS CAVERLY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Roscommon Circuit Court for 

consideration of the defendant’s issue regarding the assessment of court costs. On 

remand, because the trial court determined that it would not take the challenged 

information in the PSIR into account at sentencing, the trial court shall also direct the 

probation officer to delete the challenged information from the PSIR as required by 

MCR 6.425(E)(2)(a) and assure that a corrected copy of the report is prepared and 

transmitted to the Michigan Department of Corrections per MCR 6.425 and 

MCL 771.14(6). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
J. 

Gibbons 

our extraordinary intervention is warranted as they have an adequate 

legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment in the 

garnishee proceeding.' NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; NRS 31.460; Pan v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224-25, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 

844 (2004) (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy 

precluding writ relief and that writ relief is not available to correct an 

untimely appeal); Frank Settelmeyer & Sons, Inc. v. Smith & Harmer, 

Ltd., 124 Nev. 1206, 1214, 197 P.3d 1051, 1057 (2008) (explaining that "a 

judgment in favor of or against the garnishee defendant constitutes the 

final judgment in the garnishee proceeding, which may be appealed by an 

aggrieved party under. NRAP 3A(a) and (b)(1)"); NRAP 21(b)(1). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

J. 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Clifton J. Young 

Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant & Oster, LLP 

Doyle Law Office, PLLC 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'While petitioners titled their petition a "petition for writ of 

mandamus or prohibition & protective notice of appeal," notices of appeal 

must be filed in the district court. NRAP 3(a)(1). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ce/Plm
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,273,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,357,000
<PP&E>                                         160,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (160,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,411,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          629,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   117,881,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (110,099,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,782,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,012,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,862,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
# C_2016202EN.01014101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/141 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/141

---

Article 208

(ex Article 177 TEC)

(ex Article 177 TEC)

1.   Union policy in the field of development cooperation shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action. The Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other.

Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.

2.   The Union and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations.

---
No. PD-1340-14 

In the

Court of Criminal Appeals

♦

No. 14-13-00375-CR

In the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas at Houston

♦

No. 1253665

In the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas

♦

KEVIN LAVELLE KENT

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

♦

STATE’S MOTION REGARDING ARGUMENT

♦

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

THE STATE OF TEXAS, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 2 & 10.5, moves for a

setting of oral argument in this case not on any date from June 1 through June 11, 

2015, and would show the following: 

1. The appellant was convicted of aggregate theft of money from two families 

over a five-year period (CR – 13, 615). The court of appeals reversed the 

conviction, and this Court granted review. 

2. This Court has not yet set this case for submission, although it did permit 

argument when it granted review.

PD-1340-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/17/2015 10:43:43 AM

Accepted 4/17/2015 11:08:35 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
3. The undersigned counsel has had a family vacation planned from June 1 

through June 11, 2015 since early in 2014. The plan is to drive from Phoenix, 

Arizona to San Francisco, California, while staying in national parks along the 

way, including Grand Canyon, Death Valley, and Yosemite. As anyone who 

has stayed in those parks can attest, reservations for families usually fill up 

within hours of becoming available one year in advance. Furthermore, the 

undersigned counsel has made many non-refundable expenditures in an effort to 

secure favorable rates during the trip. 

4. Therefore, the undersigned counsel requests that this Court not set the oral 

argument in this case on any date from June 1 through June 11, 2015. The 

undersigned counsel has called counsel for the appellant, and counsel has stated 

that he does not oppose such a restriction.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the request.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Eric Kugler

ERIC KUGLER

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1923

Kugler_Eric@dao.hctx.net

(713) 755-5826

TBC No. 796910
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument will be served through 

TexFile to:

James Pons

Attorney at Law

10900 N.W. Freeway, Suite 230

Houston, Texas 77092

Jpons_78221@yahoo.com

Lisa McMinn

State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 13046

Austin, Texas 78711

Lisa.McMinn@SPA.texas.gov

/S/ Eric Kugler

ERIC KUGLER

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1923

(713) 755-5826

TBC No. 796910

Date: April 17, 2015
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00282-CR 

 

EX PARTE JERMAIN GAITHER 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 

November 30, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appearing pro se, Jermain Gaither, filed a “Motion to Reformation of the

Judgment,” wherein he requests this Court “delete the affirmative deadly weapon finding”

in his judgment of conviction.

1

 We have construed the document as an application for

writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case challenging his final felony conviction.

As an intermediate appellate court, this Court has no original habeas corpus

jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting

original habeas jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil matters); Ex parte

1 We previously affirmed Gaither’s conviction for aggravated robbery in Gaither v. State, No. 07-

15-00204-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12402 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 7, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).
2

Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

That jurisdiction instead rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and

the county courts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d

at 588. Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant post-conviction habeas

relief in final felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ex parte

Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). For these reasons, we dismiss 

Gaither’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 152 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 152

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 810 South Pendleton Street in Easley, South Carolina, as the 
       ``Captain Kimberly Nicole Hampton Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Duncan (for himself, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
Clyburn, and Mr. Rice of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 810 South Pendleton Street in Easley, South Carolina, as the 
       ``Captain Kimberly Nicole Hampton Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN KIMBERLY NICOLE HAMPTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 810 South Pendleton Street in Easley, South Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Captain Kimberly Nicole Hampton Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Kimberly Nicole Hampton Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```