alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE **ATTORNEY** GENERAL OF - AUSTIN

. a-Q.- -- Iionwublo R. I). Os%lt County Attorney W.lbarger Gouatg Vernon, n?xEl Rear Slrr

Loison the fm g this privlPXof the.52 oun eea shorlff of xo:m county In or axtondad the prlvhlogc
%lox tioa: ‘GlodLd

It be necessary that tho Conm~Qsioners Court pmt him a leave of abncncc, that lx the oomm3sionci?s oourt of his couoty?Ronorablc R. D. Cstglt, page 2 DOCaid COIZI!~LSX~D~~~O C&Pt htiv, tbE Wthority to want such Xesvc? AndLPnot, by what au-. thoritg would he be ent2tled to take this J.ca-+s upon?%u;d he be entitled ‘to his roguler salary during the time he was receiving euc!~tra4-@.Sng? ’ Noquota from 11 Texas JurPeprud.encc, pageo 553- 4-5, as follows I

“Counties, beIn coLQonen:nt, parts OSthe @t8ta, havo no poue??or duties except thoso vhich are .clearZLyset fOrth and defined ii1 the C0113*5.- tution and statutes. ‘in0 statute3 havo~clearly . defined t’ne Dolb’ere,prcscrIbed ths duties, and imDosedthe liabilities of the cor;nissionars’ oouxts, the mediumthrou$c which the different oountios act, and from theeo statutes must coma all the euthority vested lu the counties. “ . . “Ca~03i0n~Or3~ courts are courts of U&ted jurisdilotion, in that their authority extends only to matters pertainln;: ~tothe general velfnrc of their rcspect%ye counties end that said porrms exe only those expressly or impliedly conferred upon themby la&, that ia, by the Const;Ltution and.atatutea of the state.”

. lie,hnve b&u urinbls to Pind any statute requiring the sheriff to get permIssion from the co~%ssioners~ court. In OPW? to go outside his county or outoide or”Texa,s.

In. Opinion.No. O-2333 110 hold that the bohxL33ionorx~ court of Lsm&rCounty, Texas, had‘no authority to grant a Leave of absence to the county attorney to enter the U.S. Army. m~ls opiaion also ccf ’orrcd to opinion HO. o-3M8 of this department r?h.?.ch held that the commIs:!loners~ court could not deitlaro a vacancy in the office of county attorney ca tho aut!lority to doc2are a vacancy.~~ould be ti the Matrict Cowt, citing Iistilton v., fling, 206 S. W. 953, and that the county attorney was entitled to hfs enlary during the tom of his oEfioo or. until a vacmcy vas estnblisiled~ Ve enclose hercvith a copy of Opinion Xo. 0-253j for your inrormation, ‘., :
*

,~onorab2e R, D. OsvaX., pag? 3 xi; ia our opinion that, under the fRGt9 at&cd, the ‘_ aOrZ~iSsi01~?J?8’ co-mt has no authority to gmnt a loave ‘or obscixe to the ahcriff for the pwpo& s;t,atcd or any other pw?po8es. Rowever, tf the ahmiff desires tdgo he my GO on hi.0 ownvolition a5 he needs no pcrlalaJioli frorj the cm- ‘ini~eloncrs~ court. As long as he Ls cheriff he w%U be cntLt;lcd to PeGc2iVe 113.5 8Utary. Of C0?2?250, .hoWeV~r,the, GOZlmlesionem~ oourt vould not be autho,nleod to oxpmd county fund8 for the pnywnt of the shm!.Cf~s oxpenaas Zn or goins to and frm the rrchool in k?ashin~Zoq as seemuou2d not bs on county ~busfnaa~ but purely 0;1the ohcriff*s o?mp&vale busincsa; ’ .

,’

UJP:db Enclo.oquPe
June 15, 2005

25848

#### Tsugawa v. State

Affirmed
# C_2019238EN.01000302.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/3

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2018 by Anikó Pint against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 October 2018 in Case T-634/17 Pint v Commission

(Case C-770/18 P)

(2019/C 238/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded by order of 21 May 2019 and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.

---
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 Annual Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
Mund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Lapis Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Lapis
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

June 25, 2004                                        /s/ Harry Mund
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Harry Mund
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
92 P.3d 1061

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### Doe Children, In re

25252

06/14/2004

Affirmed
# C_2019072EN.01000602.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2018 — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-701/18)

(2019/C 72/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Geld-für-Flug GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a clause contained in a commercial air carrier’s general terms and conditions which has not been individually negotiated and under which an electronically concluded contract with a passenger is subject to the law of the Member State applicable where the air carrier has its registered office and which is not identical to the law of the passenger’s habitual residence is unfair in so far as it misleads the passenger by not indicating that the choice of a different law in accordance with Article 5(2), subsection 2, of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (2) is possible only to a limited extent and not any, but only legal provisions referred to in Article 5(2), subsection 2, of the Rome I Regulation may be relied on?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.000
<CASH>                                            9,239,161
<SECURITIES>                                      3,082,570
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5,337,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                        109,602
<INVENTORY>                                       3,728,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 21,843,147
<PP&E>                                            4,259,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,024,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30,013,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,575,969
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             59,575
<OTHER-SE>                                       22,678,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30,013,387
<SALES>                                          13,767,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 13,767,105
<CGS>                                             7,448,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,843,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   77,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2,148,254
<INCOME-TAX>                                        832,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,315,902
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .20


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the annual report on Form 20-F of KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (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 KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd.
  /s/ Michael J. SmithMichael J. SmithChief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit
32.4
 
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
 UNION
ELECTRIC COMPANY
 (required
by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)
 
 
 In
connection with the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004 of Union Electric Company (the “Company”) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I,
Warner L. Baxter, chief financial officer of 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
      Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
March 9, 2005
 ****/s/ Warner L.
  BaxterWarner L. BaxterExecutive Vice President
      andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
  Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10780 Conference Calendar

RORY CORNILUS PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus S. MEYERS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CV-802-M

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rory Cornilus Parker, Texas prisoner # 652714, has moved this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. In denying Parker’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, the district court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and F ED . R. A PP . P. 24(a) that the appeal is not taken in good faith because it presents no legal points of arguable merit. By moving to appeal IFP, Parker has challenged the district court’sNo. 03-10780 -2- certification. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court adopted the reason for dismissing Parker’s suit when it certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Parker argues that (1) the district court erroneously denied him IFP because the unit law library clerk did not enclose his IFP application, (2) the district court failed to take notice of the fact that he was convicted of a lesser included offense, (3) he is being punished cruelly and unusually, and (4) the district court denied him IFP because he is pro se while “the defendant is a public servant.” By failing to direct his motion solely to the district court’s reason for the certification decision, however, Parker has effectively abandoned the only issue that is properly before this court. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center , 136 F.3d 458, 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1998). Parker has a strike already. Parker v. Moreno , 3:01-CV-072 (N.D. Tex. 2002); see Patton , 136 F.3d at 463-64. Parker is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he isNo. 03-10780 -3- incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### State v. Borling

19437

11/25/96

Affirmed in part and Reversed
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. (formerly Marathon Financial
Corporation) - Form S-8, Registration No. 333-101619 and Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-41163 - and in the prospectus related to them, of our report dated
January 10, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.




/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.



Winchester, Virginia
March 31, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS*

I, Matthew O'Toole, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Hockey Company;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  August 12, 2003
                                                /s/ Matthew O'Toole
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Matthew O'Toole
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018301EN.01002001.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2018 — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

(Case C-421/18)

(2018/C 301/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

Defendant: JN

Question referred

Is the action brought by a Bar Association seeking an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees owed to it a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
' 

1258 Maryland Avenue, Hagerstown, MD 21740 

Phone: 301-393-5554 Fax 301-393-5585 

Via electronic mail to: Dana.coale@μsda.gov 

Ms. Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

United States Department ofAgriculture 

USDA-AMS-1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-0225 

Re: Request for a hearing to amend Federal Milk Marketing Orders 5, 6, and 7 

Dear Ms. Coale, 

This letter confirms the support ofLanco-Pennland for a hearing to amend the 

southeastern US federal milk orders as requested by DCMA in the request letter from Attorney 

Marvin Beshore. This further confirms our support for the five proposals submitted with the 

hearing request. We respectfully request that a hearing be held on an emergency basis to 

expedite the relief requested to our orders. 

Thank you. 

~ 

Kurt Williams 

Executive Vice President and General Manager 

ltJ-~c.--~~
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KAMREN JECOREY GARTH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4669 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Chet A. Tharpe, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. MORRIS, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Fenton v. Wintermeyer

27326

01/17/2007

Affirmed in part & reversed i part
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    228,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 274,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        154,872
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   274,902
<SALES>                                         96,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,108
<CGS>                                           83,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,840
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>