alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01007502.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/75

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament

(Case T-603/18 R)

((Interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration - Application for interim measures - Damage to reputation - No urgency))

(2019/C 44/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZE (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 287 and 279 TFEU seeking (i) the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European parliament of 25 September 2018 adopting a fixed-term suspension measure without the withholding of remuneration against the applicant; and (ii) an order that the Parliament prevent and not repeat further ‘possible leaks in the media’ involving the applicant’s name, and requesting the applicant to withdraw all personal files from the information that supervisors have, where relevant, already collected in his office.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30919

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Deverrick Martell Winfield, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:22-CR-170-1

______________________________

Before Elrod, Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Deverrick Martell Winfield appeals the 188-month prison sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of 

methamphetamine. Winfield argues that, in calculating the applicable 

imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court 

erred in concluding that his prior conviction for the offense of Louisiana 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30919 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-30919

2

second degree robbery constituted a “crime of violence,” as defined in 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Specifically, he contends that Louisiana second degree 

robbery is a general intent crime that can be committed negligently or 

recklessly. Thus, it does not satisfy the force clause in § 4B1.2(a)(1) and is 

not equivalent to the enumerated offense of robbery in § 4B1.2(a)(2). 

Because Winfield raised this argument in the district court, our review is de 

novo. See United States v. Garner, 28 F.4th 678, 681 (5th Cir. 2022). 

Winfield pleaded guilty in 2010 to Louisiana second degree robbery. 

The statute provides today, as it did in 2010, that “[s]econd degree robbery 

is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of 

another or that is in the immediate control of another when the offender 

intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury.” La. Stat. Ann. § 14:64.4. 

Louisiana appellate courts have held that Louisiana second degree robbery 

requires the defendant to act with specific intent; the defendant must actively 

desire to inflict serious bodily injury. See State v. Allen, 934 So. 2d 146, 152-

53 (La. Ct. App. 2006); see also State v. Fuller, 414 So. 2d 306, 309-10 (La. 

1982) (interpreting a similarly worded statute). Accordingly, the district 

court did not err in concluding that Louisiana second degree robbery is a 

specific intent crime and a crime of violence for purposes of § 4B1.2(a). See 

Allen, 934 So. 2d at 152-54; see also United States v. Parker, 3 F.4th 178, 181 

n.16 (5th Cir. 2021) (indicating that a Louisiana offense’s status as a specific 

intent crime satisfies the identical force clause of the Armed Career Criminal 

Act).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-30919 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
Faulk, Scott (osn 

Subject: FW: Sun Air EAS for Macon, GA 

From: Dave Hackett [mailto:dhackett@gosunair.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:22 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Cc: Thomas L Cooper; Faulk, Scott (OST) 

Subject: RE: Sun Air EAS for Macon, GA 

Dennis tnat fine for official communication unless you would like us to 

Thanks very much 

Dave 

From: Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov [mailto:Dennis.DeVanv@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:26 PM 

To: Dave Hackett 

Cc: Thomas L Cooper; Scott.Faulk@dot.gov 

Subject: RE: Sun Air EAS for Macon, GA 

your withdrawal that 

From: Dave Hackett [mailto:dhackett@gosunair.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:20 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Cc: Thomas L Cooper 

Subject: Sun Air EAS for Macon, GA 

Good Afternoon Dennis, 

a more 

else? Thx. 

As you know, Sun Air has recently begun Essential Air Service to Victoria, TX, Hagerstown, MD and Lancaster, PA 

. Service to Macon, GA is scheduled to begin next month. We have been working closely with Pacific Wings in Macon to 

ensure the required levels of service have been maintained, and they have been very supportive of those efforts. 

To date, we have not yet fully implemented our LNS and HGR schedules. Those will go into effect the first week of 

January. 

Since beginning our EAS operations, we have clearly encountered greater challenges than anticipated in completing our 

pilot recruiting and training. Getting maintenance bases established that meet our requirements in Texas and MD/PA 

has also been more difficult than we expected. The result of these circumstances is that our operations have not been 

up to the standards we and the communities expect. 

As a result, we have made the decision to concentrate our available resources on the VCT, LNS and HGR markets and to 

withdraw from serving the Macon, GA market. While we are clearly disappointed in not being able to serve Macon, we 

1 
firmly believe that all four communities will receive superior service as a result. We apologize for any inconvenience 

and additional work that this requires for the Department, but believe it to be the right decision for all parties involved. 

We will communicate this decision to Pacific Wings immediately, and hope that a replacement carrier can be found 

quickly. 

Sincerely, 

David F. Hackett 

President I Sun Air International 

3201 Griffin Rd. 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 

2
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1




	
	
	






December 13, 2016
Paul L. Howes
Newpark Resources, Inc.
President & Chief Executive Officer
9320 Lakeside Boulevard, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
Re: Extension of salary reduction
Dear Paul:
This letter sets forth the terms of our agreement relating to the extension of the 10% reduction of your annualized Base Salary and the corresponding adjustment to your incentive compensation under the 2010 Annual Cash Incentive Plan (the “ACIP”) as set forth in the Amendment to the Employment Agreement, dated February 16, 2016 (the “Amendment”), between you and Newpark Resources, Inc. (“Company”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Amendment and the Employment Agreement, dated December 31, 2008, between you and the Company (the “Employment Agreement”). The terms of our agreement with regard to the extension are as follows:
		
	1.
	The 10% reduction to your annualized Base Salary as set forth in the Amendment will continue in effect through March 31, 2017.


		
	2.
	Beginning March 1, 2016, your annualized Base Salary will be Six Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($675,000.00).


		
	3.
	Your Base Salary for purposes of calculating payments under the ACIP will likewise be adjusted through March 31, 2017 to reflect this 10% reduction in your annualized Base Salary.


		
	4.
	If your employment is terminated prior to March 31, 2017 pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement, your payment provided for in Section 2.3(b)(i) and the calculation of the “Performance Target” set forth in Section 2.3(b)(ii) will be based upon your $750,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your Base Salary at the time of termination of $675,000.00.


		
	5.
	If your employment is terminated prior to March 31, 2017 pursuant to Section 2.7 of the Employment Agreement, your payment provided for in Section 2.7(a)(i) and the calculation of the “Performance Target” set forth in Section 2.7(a)(ii) will be based upon your $750,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your Base Salary at the time of termination of $675,000.00.




	
	
	Newpark Resources, Inc. ñ 9320 Lakeside Blvd, Suite 100, The Woodlands, Texas 77381 ñ (281) 362-6800 ñ FAX (281) 362-6801











		
	6.
	This 10% reduction in your annualized Base Salary and the corresponding adjustment to your incentive compensation under the ACIP do not constitute “Good Reason” for any purpose under the Employment Agreement including, without limitation, Section 2.1 and Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement, or a termination by the Company. 


Except for the foregoing modifications, the Amendment and the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	Newpark Resources, Inc.

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Mark J. Airola

	Name:
	Mark J. Airola

	Title:
	Senior VP, General Counsel

	 
	and Chief Administrative Officer




            


Agreed to and accepted this 13th day of December, 2016.
	
	
	/s/ Paul L. Howes

	Paul L. Howes










2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350  as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Christopher R. Gardner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

May 11,
2009

By:

/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. GARDNER Christopher R. Gardner Chief Executive Officer


I,
Richard C. Yonker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

May 11,
2009

By:

/s/ RICHARD C. YONKER Richard C. Yonker Chief Financial Officer


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

---



QuickLinks
##### 



Exhibit 3.2
 BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
 AMENDED AND RESTATED CODE OF REGULATIONS
 PREAMBLE
  ARTICLE I
MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS
 1.1 Annual Meetings
 1.2 Special Meetings
 1.3 Place of Meetings solely




---



##### 



1.4 Notice of Meeting; Waiver of Notice
    1.5 Quorum; Adjournment; Action by Shareholders




---



##### 



in
 1.6 Action Without a Meeting
 1.7 Proxies
   1.8 Shareholder List
 ARTICLE II
DIRECTORS
 2.1 Number of Directors.




---



##### 



2.2 Election and Term of Office; Resignations
 2.3 Removal from Office provided, however,
 2.4 Vacancies
 ARTICLE III
AUTHORITY, MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE DIRECTORS
 3.1 Authority of Directors.
 3.2 Meetings of the Directors




---



##### 



3.3 Quorum; Adjournment; Action by Directors
 3.4 Action Without a Meeting
 3.5 By-Laws
 3.6 Committees of the Directors.




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS
 4.1 Officers
 4.2 Election and Term of Office
 4.3 Duties of Officers
 Chairman of the Board
 President




---



##### 



Vice President
 Senior Vice President and Executive Vice President
 Secretary
 Treasurer
 ARTICLE V
TRANSACTIONS WITH DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS; COMPENSATION
 5.1 Certain Transactions




---



##### 



5.2 Approval and Ratification of Acts of Directors and Officers
 5.3 Compensation
 ARTICLE VI
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION
 6.1 Limitation of Liability




---



##### 



6.2 Indemnification Proceeding




---



##### 



Indemnitee Expenses Liabilities
 6.3 Court-Approved Indemnification Designated Court
 6.4 Indemnification for Expenses When Successful on the Merits or Otherwise.




---



##### 



6.5 Determination.
    6.6 Presumptions
 6.7 Advances for Expenses.




---



##### 



6.8 Right of Indemnitee to Bring Suit.
 6.9 Nonexclusivity
 6.10 Insurance
 6.11 Venue; Jurisdiction.
 .




---



##### 



6.12 References
 ARTICLE VII
CERTIFICATE FOR SHARES
 7.1 Form of Certificates; Signatures.
 7.2 Uncertificated Shares
 7.3 Transfer Agents and Registrars
 ARTICLE VIII
OTHER MATTERS
 8.1 Computation of Time for Notice




---



##### 



8.2 Authority to Transfer and Vote Securities
 8.3 Corporate Seal provided,
however,
 8.4 Books and Records.
 8.5 Fiscal Year.
 8.6 Resignations.
 8.7 Facsimile Signatures.
 ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS
Danh mục kiểm tra quản lý phân 

gia cầm và chất độn chuồng 

Khi bạn nuôi hoặc xử lý gia cầm, bạn sẽ cần xử lý phân gia cầm. Tùy vào cách bạn nuôi gia 

cầm như thế nào, bạn cũng có thể cần phải dọn chất độn chuồng gia cầm đã sử dụng. Quản lý 

các vật liệu này đúng cách là một phần quan trọng của an toàn sinh học. Vi-rút cúm gia cầm có 

thể tồn tại trong phân và chất độn chuồng trong thời gian dài, và những vật phẩm này cũng có 

thể mang theo các chất gây ô nhiễm khác.

Vì vậy, làm thế nào để quản lý phân gia cầm và chất độn chuồng an toàn? Hàng ngày bạn có 

thể thực hiện một số biện pháp đơn giản để bảo vệ đàn gia cầm của mình và có kế hoạch 

trước để bảo vệ chúng khỏi bị lây bệnh khi dịch bệnh bùng phát.

Hãy xem danh mục ở mặt sau để biết những 

lời khuyên giúp giữ cho đàn gia cầm của bạn 

khỏe mạnh.

√

Nếu bạn phát hiện những dấu hiệu gia cầm bị ốm, hãy hành động ngay! Số Điện Thoại

Bác sĩ thú y

Văn Phòng Khuyến Nông Hợp Tác Xã

Phòng Thí Nghiệm Chẩn Đoán Thú Y/Gia Súc hoặc Gia Cầm của Tiểu Bang

USDA 866.536.7593

Cơ Quan Thanh Tra Sức Khỏe Động Vật và Thực Vật

Báo Cáo Gia Cầm Bị Ốm
Danh mục: Quản lý phân gia cầm 

và chất độn chuồng

USDA là một cơ quan tạo cơ hội, tuyển dụng và cho vay 

bình đẳng với tất cả mọi người.

Cơ Quan Thanh Tra Sức Khỏe Động Vật và Thực Vật

Chương Trình Hỗ Trợ Số 2235-12VI | Phát hành tháng Hai năm 2020

Danh mục này là một hướng dẫn chung để áp dụng tốt an toàn sinh học, nhưng nếu bạn có 

một kế hoạch an toàn sinh học cụ thể cho từng khu vực, hãy tuân thủ kế hoạch đó. Những 

người chăn nuôi thương mại phải đảm bảo kế hoạch cho khu vực cụ thể của mình tuân thủ các 

quy tắc an toàn sinh học của Kế Hoạch Nâng Cao Đàn Gia Cầm Quốc Gia.

√

Đánh giá khu vực chăn nuôi của bạn và các 

giải pháp để loại bỏ, lưu giữ và xử lý phân và 

chất độn chuồng đã sử dụng. Công việc này có 

thể thực hiện tại chỗ hoặc ngoài cơ sở chăn nuôi. 

Biện pháp xử lý phụ thuộc vào loài và số lượng 

gia cầm và chủng loại hệ thống chuồng trại tại cơ 

sở chăn nuôi của bạn. 

Xác định phạm vi: Những loại phân và chất độn 

chuồng nào bạn cần quản lý tại khu vực chăn nuôi 

của mình, và số lượng phát sinh trong khoảng 

thời gian nhất định? 

Thiết lập các quy trình chuẩn bao gồm những 

điều cơ bản sau:

• Thu thập, vận chuyển, lưu giữ và / hoặc sử dụng 

phân gia súc

• Bất kỳ quy định nào của pháp luật tiểu bang 

hoặc địa phương được áp dụng

• Những lo ngại về môi trường

• Kiểm soát thú hoang, côn trùng và các loài gặm 

nhấm

Để biết thêm thông tin về cách giữ cho đàn gia cầm của bạn khỏe mạnh, hãy theo dõi 

Defend the Flock trên Facebook và Twitter và truy cập

www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock.

Xây dựng một kế hoạch dự phòng để lưu giữ các chất 

này lâu dài trong trường hợp dịch bệnh kéo dài. Việc 

rải hoặc lưu giữ phân gia cầm và chất độn chuồng ngoài 

khu vực chăn nuôi có thể không được phép tùy thuộc vào 

nguy cơ lây lan vi-rút.

Làm sạch và khử trùng bất kỳ phương tiện và thiết bị 

nào đã sử dụng để dọn phân TRƯỚC KHI đưa đến khu 

chăn nuôi.

Dọn tất cả phân và chất độn chuồng ra khỏi chuồng gia 

cầm và làm sạch và khử trùng hoàn toàn trước khi bổ 

sung thêm gia cầm.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1861

PATRICIA T. PATTERSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JAMES R. BARBER, III; GEORGE FUNDERBURK; SUSAN BARDEN; DAVID 

HUFFSTERTLER,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (0:10-cv-00025-MBS)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Patterson v. Barber, No. 0:10-cv-00025-MBS (D.S.C. 

June 10, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order filed February 28 , 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 12

- 0 0017

- CR

____________

ROBERT TAYLOR WILLIAMS

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1225261



### ORDER

The reporter ’ s reco rd in this case was due February 17 , 20 12

. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.2. On February 6 , 20 12 , the clerk of this court received the reporter’s record, but was

unable to file it because volumes eight through eleven had not been signed by Walter N.

Johnson, the court reporter

. We therefore issue the following order.

We order Walter N. Johnson , the official court reporter, to file a complete, signed

record in this appeal on or before Marc h 9

, 20 12

.

PER CURIAM
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2

3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

4

5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

6

JOSE LEON GONZALES-LONGORIA, 

AKA Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

DENNIS MATTHEW WONG; et al., 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 18-15777 

D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01587-LJO-MJS 

MEMORANDUM*

7

8 Appeal from the United States District Court

9 for the Eastern District of California

10 Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

11

Submitted August 15, 2018** 12

13

14 Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

15 Federal prisoner Jose Leon Gonzales-Longoria appeals pro se from the 

16 district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. We have 

17 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

18 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Kildare v. 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

1 Saenz, 325 F. 3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of mandamus); Barren v. 

2 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 

3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

4 The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez-Longoria’s petition for writ 

5 of mandamus because Gonzalez-Longoria failed to show that there was “no other 

6 adequate remedy” available. Lowry v. Barhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 

7 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth elements for 

8 mandamus relief). 

9 AFFIRMED.
# C_2018301EN.01003901.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Waiting period - Abnormally low tender - Prima facie case - No urgency))

(2018/C 301/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---