alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009267EN.01002202.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria)) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

(Case C-347/08) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Motor accident - Statutory assignment of the rights of an injured party in favour of a social security institution - Action for recovery against the insurer of a person allegedly liable - Objective of protecting the weaker party)

2009/C 267/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Feldkirch

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

Applicant:

Defendant: WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Feldkirch — Interpretation of Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Action brought under statutory subrogation by a social security institution before the court for the place where that institution is established against an insurer established in another Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, acting as the statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party in a motor accident, may not bring an action directly in the courts of its Member State of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible for the accident, where that insurer is established in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
**EXHIBIT        8**

 

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

 

**Brazauro Resources Corporation**

(a        British Columbia corporation)

 

Owns 100%        of the following corporations:

 

Star U.S.        Inc.

(a        Delaware corporation)

 

and

 

Brazauro        Holdings (Brazauro) Ltd.

(a        British Columbia corporation)

 

and

 

Resource        Holdings 2004

(a BVI        corporation)

 

Brazauro        Resources Corporation owns 98% of:

 

Jaguar        Resources do Brasil Ltda.

(a        Brazilian corporation)

 

Brazauro        Holdings (Brazauro) Ltd. owns 2% and 1%, respectively of:

 

Jaguar        Resources do Brasil Ltda.

(a        Brazilian corporation)

 

Empresa        Internacional de Mineração do Brasil Ltda

(a        Brazilian corporation)

 

Resource        Holdings 2004 owns 99% of:

 

Empresa        Internacional de Mineração do Brasil Ltda

 

Jaguar        Resources do Brasil Ltda. owns 100% of:

 

Mineração Cachambix Ltda.

(a        Brazilian corporation)

 

Star U.S.        Inc. Owns 100% of the

following        three corporations:

 

Diamond        Operations, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Diamond        Exploration, Inc. (an Arkansas corporation)

Continental Diamonds, Inc. (an Arkansas corporation)

 

 

 

 

----
#### IN RE: UNITED STATES of America; Donald J. Trump; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke. United States of America; Donald J. Trump; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Petitioners, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Respondent, Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, In her official capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Saul Jimenez Suarez, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 17-72917

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

NOVEMBER 18, 2017

Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The court has received the government’s November 17, 2017 emergency stay motion. The Response to the motion is due Monday, November 20, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. PST, and the optional reply is due Monday, November 20, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. PST.

In addition to all other issues the parties wish to raise in the response and reply, the parties shall address vyhether this court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of proceedings, or whether the motion for a stay should instead be filed in the district court. *See Ellis v. U.S. Dist. Court,*360 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
# C_2018364EN.01001401.xml

| 8.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/14

---

Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament

(Case T-402/18)

(2018/C 364/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and 30 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently:






  — | annul the decision of 2 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters for 3 July 2018 as well as future decisions requisitioning interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently:

—

annul the decision of 2 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters for 3 July 2018 as well as future decisions requisitioning interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 1 000 per applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 1 000 per applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-401/18, SFIE-PE v Parliament.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,545
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          41,493
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          20,217
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,437
<LOANS>                                        263,097
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,718
<DEPOSITS>                                     333,989
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,279
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,286
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 405,718
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,517
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,252
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,532
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,301
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,993
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,308
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      159
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,923
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,838
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.32
<LOANS-NON>                                        745
<LOANS-PAST>                                        40
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   701
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,486
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,163
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      165
<RECOVERIES>                                        27
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,284
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,284
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
18524

#### Valdez v. Royal Islander Club and Hotel

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Ivan Wolkind, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| Dated: August 14, 2007 |   | /s/ IVAN WOLKIND         |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                        |   | Ivan Wolkind             |
|                        |   | Chief Accounting Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 13.1

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), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

That Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                          |  |                 |  |                        
|------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: September 24, 2007 |  | /s/ John Marlay
|                          |  | Name:           |  | John Marlay            
|                          |  | Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### State v. Lester

18053

3/19/97

Affirmed
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 51070 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ARLENE HERNANDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 770

- 3

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arlene Hernandez appeals the revocation of her term of probation, which was based on her having committed another federal, state, or local crime. We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion

. See United States v. Teran , 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996)

. Contrary to Hernandez’s assertions, the Government was not required to prove the elements of the Texas offenses with which she was charged ; rather

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-51070 Document: 00515497334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2020No. 19

- 51070

2 t he district court could r evoke Hernandez’s probation if it f ound by a preponderance of the evidence that she violated a condition of her probation. See Teran , 98 F.3d at 836 ; see also United States v. Spraglin , 418 F.3d 479, 481 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The simple possession of a controlled substance is both a federal and Texas crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 844 ; T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § § 481.115

- 481.1 18

. Hernandez concedes that the Government proved possession. T he evidence and reasonable inferences f rom it , reviewed in the light most favorable to the G overnment , see United States v. Alaniz

- Alaniz , 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) , established that she more likely than not possessed controlled substances. Specifically, the arresting officer smelled a strong marijuana odor emanating from the vehicle in which Hernandez sat ; inside the vehicle he found what he suspected to be cocaine , marijuana , Ecsta s y, Xanax, an d an acid tab ; and the suspected Ecstasy and cocaine field

tested positive

. We review Hernandez’s claim that the revocation violated her due process rights for plain error only. See Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020)

. A s detailed above, there was evidentiary support for a fi nding that she violated the conditions of her probation

. Hernandez therefore fails to make the requisite showing that a due process error occurred

or that the error was clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United Stat es v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue immediately. Case: 19-51070 Document: 00515497334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2020
# C_2021019EN.01000902.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-676/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Effects of a judgment of the Court)

(2021/C 19/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
#### Floyd HANGER, Jr., Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12896.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 23, 1960.

*252Floyd Hanger, Jr., pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

The record discloses that the petitioner, Floyd Hanger, Jr., was received at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester on May 6, 1959, and is now restrained and imprisoned in said institution by reason of a judgment and sentence made and entered on May 6, 1959 in the district court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, wherein said petitioner was charged by information with the crime of indecent acts toward a minor child under the age of fourteen years, after former conviction of a felony. Upon his plea of guilty to said charge, he received a sentence of ten years in the State Penitentiary.

Petitioner seeks by way of writ of habeas corpus his release from the penitentiary upon the ground, in substance, that he was insane at the time of the commission of said alleged crime, “in that he had been declared incompetent by a county court and committed to a state hospital, and upon his release had never been restored to legal competency.”

The question presented has been before this Court many times. In Ex parte Potts, 89 Okl.Cr. 89, 205 P.2d 522, 523, this Court said:

> “After a judgment of conviction has become final, the question of a defendant’s insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, or at the time of the trial, cannot be raised on habeas corpus.”

See also: Ex parte Yandell, 54 Okl.Cr. 357, 22 P.2d 114; Ex parte Gilbert, 71 Okl.Cr. 268, 111 P.2d 205; 29 A.L.R.2d 703, note.

The petition is, accordingly, denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
April 20, 1998

20470

#### Hirano v. State

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5211-H5212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1230
                        EVERYONE GETS A TAX CUT

  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding 
on the other side of the aisle on the tax cuts that the Democrats are 
now proposing.
  Yes, we want to cut taxes for the middle class. We think that it is 
critical for our economic recovery. We also want to cut taxes for 
everyone else, including the most fortunate, but only on the first 
$250,000 of their earnings. On that portion of their earnings, they 
will receive the exact same tax cut as the middle class. But if we hope 
to seriously address the issue of long-term deficits and debt, we can't 
do it by spending cuts alone.
  According to the nonpartisan fact-checking organization 
FactCheck.org, in 2009 Federal tax rates were the lowest level in 30 
years. Let's make one of those hard choices the other side of the aisle 
likes to talk about. Let's extend the middle class tax breaks, but let 
the tax cuts for the most fortunate expire and use every bit of that 
revenue to help pay down the deficit and get our economy moving in the 
right direction.

[[Page H5212]]

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 23.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
  
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-53531 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-75742 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-75744 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-113945 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-124677 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-57920 on Form S-3;
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-133854 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-142615 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-150807 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-151942 on Form S-8; and
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-159077 on Form S-8.
   Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSION ON AMERICANS LIVING ABROAD ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, U.S. citizens who live and work abroad 
serve as American's informal ambassadors, helping to strengthen the 
United States economy and promoting American influence around the 
globe. For years I have worked to ensure overseas Americans are able to 
exercise their right to vote and have access to banking services. Five 
years ago I formed the Congressional Americans Abroad Caucus to focus 
and bring awareness to the concerns of the 4-6 million U.S. citizens 
residing abroad. Because they're scattered across the world, it can be 
hard for Americans living abroad to get the attention of Congress. U.S. 
citizens remain Americans wherever they are in the world and should not 
be ignored.
  Americans living and working outside the U.S. continue to voice 
concerns regarding the impact of federal policies on voting, access to 
financial institutions, immigration, and taxation. Given that these and 
other federal policies affecting Americans abroad cover an array of 
agencies, we should study the full impact of these policies on the 
overseas community. That is why today I am introducing the Commission 
on Americans Living Abroad Act, creating an Executive Commission 
expressly charged with examining the concerns of U.S. citizens living 
and working abroad. This new legislation creates a 15 member panel to 
study the impact of U.S. laws and Executive actions on the overseas 
Americans community. The study would then be used to make 
recommendations for actions Congress and the Executive Branch could 
take to improve collaboration and communication of policies impacting 
this community. Through this study we can better ensure awareness, 
coordination, and integration of the activities of the federal 
government relating to Americans abroad. Thanks to original cosponsors 
Reps. Michael Honda and Charles Rangel for their support of the bill 
and their advocacy on behalf of overseas Americans.
  It is time we take a systemic look at all the issues affecting our 
citizens living abroad. Through this bipartisan Commission we can 
establish the state of policies and rules affecting Americans abroad so 
we can better serve their needs as they live and work in our global 
economy. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

                          ____________________
```