alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019155EN.01004401.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/44

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament

(Case T-156/18) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Institutional law - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Article 130 - Annex II - Question for written answer - Request that the question be forwarded to the Council - Notification of the decision finding the question inadmissible - Invitation to act - Position of the Parliament - Application for an injunction - Inadmissible)

(2019/C 155/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Ryszard Antoni Legutko (Morawica, Poland) and Tomasz Piotr Poręba (Mielec, Poland) (represented by: M. Mataczyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Alonso de León and A. Pospíšilová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to forward Question for written answer P-003358/17 to the Council of the European Union, in breach of Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament and the provisions of Annex II thereto.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Mr Tomasz Piotr Poręba are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Mr Tomasz Piotr Poręba are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0551

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JADE HUNTER KERR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 8, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2024

05/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0551
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0463 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. JUSTIN DALLAS PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Deidre Taber is granted an extension of time to and including February 2 , 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 20 2021

12/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0463
#### Neighbors of the Ala Wai v. First Development Inc.

17637

5/23/97

Dismissed
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF HEIN AND ASSOCIATESLLP**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-152282,333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567 and 333-65528) on Form S-8 of EmriseCorporation of our report dated April 15, 2009 relating to our audit ofthe consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Emrise Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 
| /s/  Hein & Associates LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Irvine,  California                 |   |
| April 15,  2009                |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: MARIAN D. TOTH,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

PETITION OF: J. GEZA TOTH :

:

:

:

: No. 615 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Lewis, Appellant, *v.*Fink et al., Appellees.

(No. 31929

Decided December 7, 1949.)

*Mr. Stanley Denlinger,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herman E. Werner,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00901

- CR

EX PARTE Paul Edward NIMNICHT

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR9336

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 15, 2015.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 MISONIX, INC. (the "Company") on
FORM  10-Q  for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Zaremba,
Chief  Financial 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 represents, in all
               material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result  of
               operations  of  the  Company.

/s/  Richard  Zaremba
---------------------
Richard  Zaremba
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
February 6, 2004






A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained
by  MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Final Steps for Licensure

CVB-SOP-0063 03

PEL Reviewer Manual Ch. 2.2

CVB-SOP-PEL-REV

21 May 2021

Used to prepare a Licensing Package

CVB-Released
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 25, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00098

- CR

Brian Vincent Robinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUS TICES GOODWIN AND FI ELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed

the record and the pa rties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of convict i on. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjud ication

of costs is made.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 726 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American 

Federation of Teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2016 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. HOYER, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. DANNY

K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. SERRANO, 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. WALZ) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the 

American Federation of Teachers. 

Whereas May 9, 2016, is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Federation of Teachers (referred to 

in this preamble as the ‘‘AFT’’); 

Whereas the AFT was founded in Chicago on May 9, 1916, 

when 8 local unions formed the AFT and were granted 

a charter signed by the AFL President, Samuel Gompers; 

Whereas those 8 local unions were— 

(1) the Chicago Teachers Federation; 

(2) the Chicago Federation of Men Teachers; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 726 IH 

(3) the Chicago Federation of Women High School 

Teachers; 

(4) the Gary, Indiana, Teachers Federation; 

(5) the Teachers Union of New York; 

(6) the Oklahoma Teachers Federation; 

(7) the Scranton, Pennsylvania, Teachers Association; and 

(8) the High School Teachers Union of Washington, 

DC; 

Whereas, during the first century of the AFT, the AFT has 

grown mightily into a diverse union of professionals that 

champions principles of fairness, democracy, economic 

opportunity, and high-quality public education, 

healthcare, and public services for students, the families 

of the students, and communities; 

Whereas the AFT advances those principles through community engagement, organizing, collective bargaining, political activism, and the daily work of members of the AFT 

in the communities the members serve; and 

Whereas members of the AFT and affiliates of the AFT have 

played a crucial role in major milestones such as the civil 

rights movement, education reform, women’s rights, and 

the evolution of the middle class: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commemorates the 100th anniversary of the 

3 founding of the American Federation of Teachers; 

4 and 

5 (2) expresses hope that the American Federa6 tion of Teachers will honor its proud past by meet7 ing the challenges of the future with the same level 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 726 IH 

1 of commitment to the goals, ideals, and principles it 

2 championed during the first century of the American 

3 Federation of Teachers. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Taylor

21273

11/19/98

Affirmed
ACCEPTED 06-14-00115-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/28/2015 12:25:25 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
Item_5_3_12a_Q fever/ page 1

Annex 15

CHAPTER 8.X.**INFECTION WITH *COXIELLA**BURNETII* (Q FEVER)**

Article 8.X.1.

General provisions

Various animal species and humans can be affected by Q fever, but many of them, including *wild* and *feral* animals, do not play an epidemiologically significant role. For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, Q fever is defined as an *infection* of domestic and *captive wild* ruminants, dogs, and cats (hereafter ‘susceptible animal’) with *Coxiella burnetii*. 

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with *C. burnetii*:

1)	*C. burnetii* has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a susceptible animal; or 

2)	nucleic acid specific to *C. burnetii* has been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs or pathological lesions consistent with *infection* with *C.**burnetii*, or~~that is~~epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or

3)	antibodies specific to *C. burnetii*, that are not the consequence of *vaccination*, have been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs or pathological lesions consistent with *infection* with *C.**burnetii*, or~~that is~~epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*.

Standards for diagnosis ~~diagnostic tests~~and vaccines, as well as information on the epidemiology, are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
July 22, 2002

24015

#### State v. Mogi

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Mohamed T. Mehdi, Ghazi Khankan and Mohamed M. Rabie, Appellants.

Supreme 'Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 16, 1970.

*Robert W. Thabit*for appellants. *Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (Michael R. Juviler*and *David L. Levinson*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The conviction, insofar as based upon violation of subdivision 5 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law was, as conceded by the District Attorney, error (see *People*v. *Kranish,*N. Y. L. J., March 18,1970, p. 2, col. 4 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]), for there was no proof defendants did anything more than demonstrate in the area prescribed therefor by the pólice.

We find no error, however, in the ruling below that, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or *708recklesly creating a risk thereof, defendants’ conduct created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act which serves no legitimate purpose (Penal Law, § 240.20, subd. 7). The Trial Judge could properly find that by igniting a 6-foot by 8-foot flag (of another country) in the midst of a large, closely packed assemblage, defendants placed themselves and the others present in a dangerous situation. Such acts, violative of the public health, safety or well-being are not protected by the First Amendment *(People*v. *Todaro,*26 N Y 2d 325, 329; *People*v. *Radich,*26 N Y 2d 114,118-120; *People*v. *Street,*24 N Y 2d 1026; see 394 U. S. 576, revg. 20 N Y 2d 231; *United States*v. *O’Brien,*391 U. S. 367).

Judgment of conviction of violation of subdivision 5 of section

240.20 of the Penal Law reversed on the law and the facts and the complaint, insofar as it asserts such violations, dismissed.

Judgment of conviction of violation of subdivision 7 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law affirmed.

Concur — Quinn, J. P., Gold and Markowitz, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
March 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________
No. 03-10625 Summary Calendar

_______________



### O LUMUYIWA 

### A YODEJI 

### A DELEKE 

### , Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### B ANK OF 

### A MERICA 

### , Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas


### m 3:02-CV-319-L

_________________________
Before S MITH , D E M OSS and S TEWART , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

Olumuyiwa Adeleke sued his former employer, claiming violations of title VII. In a careful, det ailed, and comprehensive order signe d on May 30, 2002, and entered on June 3, 2003, the district court gran ted sum

mary judgment to the bank. Adeleke appeals
pro se

.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the distric t court. This was an ordinary workpl a ce dispute, and Adeleke was terminated for well established and documented reasons. As the district court demonstrated, there is no showing that any employment statute was violated.

AFFIRMED. * 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,671
<SECURITIES>                                     3,723
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,104
<PP&E>                                           7,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,925
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,965
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,954
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary M. De Laurentiis,  Chief Executive Officer of Itec  Environmental  Group
Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Itec Environmental
Group Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
     employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's  internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ Gary M. De Laurentiis
-------------------------
Gary M. De Laurentiis
Date: February 9, 2004
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40119 

Conference Calendar

 

NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NFN SANDERS, Commissary Manager,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-02-CV-839 

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Keith Singleton, Texas prisoner # 716045, has

filed a motion captioned "Motion to reply with brief in support"

following the district court's order dismissing as frivolous

Singleton's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Singleton's

motion is construed as a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis ("IFP"). By moving for IFP, Singleton is

challenging the district court's certification that IFP status

should not be granted because the appeal is not taken in good

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-40119

-2-

faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Singleton's IFP "motion must be directed solely to the trial

court's reasons for the certification decision." Id.

Singleton asserts only that the district court was wrong for

denying him IFP. Although this court liberally construes pro se

briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the

court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because

Singleton does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the

district court's certification decision, he has abandoned the

issue on appeal. See id.

Singleton has not shown that the district court erred in

certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. 

Accordingly, we uphold the district court's order certifying that

the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Singleton's request

for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Singleton is cautioned that the district court's dismissal

of his complaint as frivolous and this court's dismissal of his

appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If

Singleton accrues three strikes, he will not be able to proceed

IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 04-40119

-3-

 IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING

ISSUED.