alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-94,464-01

EX P ARTE MIG UEL ANGEL MONTES GONZ ALEZ, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2020-DCR- 00828-G IN THE 404 DISTRICT COURT

T H F ROM CAM ERON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Te x . C ri m . App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted robber y and sente nced to f

ifteen y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant’s application is written in Spanish. I n order for this Court to proper l y ad d ress Applicant’s cl ai m s , t he trial court should have Applicant’s memorandum translated by a certified translator. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has obtained a translated and
cer tified copy of Appli cant’ s application. The translation shall be resolv ed wi t hin 90 day s of t his2

order
. A supplemental transc ri pt containing the orig inal application and the cer tified, translated application shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of time shall be obtained f rom this Court.
Filed: January

25, 2023 Do not publish
# C_2010288EN.01003702.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Carpent Languages v Commission

(Case T-582/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Organisation of meetings and conferences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment)

(2010/C 288/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carpent Languages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 rejecting the applicant’s bid for lot No 4 ‘Provision of teams of interpreters according to the linguistic requirements of each event’ of contract notice VT/2008/036 (Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services), and the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2008 appointing the successful tenderer of lot No 4, and an application for a declaration that the Commission be ordered to pay damages in the event that the General Court does not grant the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Carpent Languages SPRL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Carpent Languages SPRL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

---
**Exhibit 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Clay M. Whitson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of iPayment, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: May 14, 2007 By: /s/ Clay M. Whitson             Clay M. Whitson      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019288EN.01005101.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

(Case T-377/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by EMA containing information submitted by the applicants in the context of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva - Decision to grant a third party access to a document - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings)

(2019/C 288/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Intercept Pharma Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (New York, New York, United States), (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos and H. Kerr-Peterson, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: initially by S. Marino, S. Drosos, A. Rusanov and T. Jabłoński, and subsequently by S. Marino, S. Drosos, T. Jabłoński, R. Pita and G. Gavriilidou, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EMA decision ASK-40399 of 15 May 2018, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPE

P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITQLSIAXI0N,-4UST- ^ss

OFFICIAL BUSIiraco^

STATE OF TEMS^f

PENALTY FOR , .*'gjj. . 12/15/2014 PRIVATE USE gj;; fi^g^^M 0002003152 dec22 2014

CAVITT, DONALD RAY JR. 'Jr. Ct?No. WO^S^i-AW* FROM 2WK*S2#S6J11

On this day, the application for-,1i:0,7.Writ/)f Habeas Corpus has been received

and presented tothe Court. ^"^f:* *"*&/, ' "*""" '"""' Abel Acosta, Clerk

iftfEXAS

DONALD RAY CAVITT JR.

EAST TEXAS TREATMENT FACILITY

#1888682

„?%$.-&

TDC

\S RETURNED FOR

CARRIER 'bNDORSEIU-EWV

MEBN3B 7t»&t=2 WWi
<PAGE>


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 Form 10-QSB of VOYAGER PETROLEUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Cathy Persin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

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 presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




DATE: AUGUST 20, 2007


/S/ CATHY PERSIN
-----------------------------------------
CATHY PERSIN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
(PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dresser, Inc. (Dresser) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30,
2004 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 Dresser as of the dates and for periods
presented as required by such Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 12, 2004



/s/ Steven G.
Lamb

Steven G. Lamb

Chief Executive Officer and President
# C_2008272EN.01000802.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/8

---

Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-329/08)

(2008/C 272/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC expired on 30 April 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary for transposition as regards the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.

1

---
# C_2011160EN.01001602.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (ACNO FOCUS)

(Case T-466/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ACNO FOCUS - Earlier national word mark FOCUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 160/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Schweizer and J. Berlinger, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2008 (Case R 1796/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
Exhibit
10.2


 


Fourth
Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


This
Fourth Amendment to the Employment Agreement (this “Fourth Amendment”) is entered into as of this 28 day of
November 2016, by and between Yifat Zommer, an individual residing at Rehovot, Israel (the “Executive”),
and ORAMED Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, with an address at Hi-Tech Park 2/4 Givat
Ram, Jerusalem, Israel 91390 (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of April 19, 2009 (the “Original Agreement”),
which was amended on August 31, 2009 , on July 17, 2013 and on July 21, 2015 (the “Amendments”, and together
with the Original Agreement, the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
Company and the Executive desire to amend some of terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 


1.           In Section 2.1(a) - Salary of the Original Agreement, the following paragraph is hereby added:


 


As
of January 1st, 2017, the Executive shall be entitled to a gross monthly salary of NIS 36,680 (the “Salary”).





2.           Except for the changes and/or additions stated herein, all the other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain valid and
bind the parties without any change. In the case of a contradiction between the provisions of this Fourth Amendment and the provisions
of the Employment Agreement, the provisions of this Fourth Amendment shall prevail. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
the term “Agreement” as used in the Employment Agreement shall be deemed to be the Employment Agreement as amended
by this Fourth Amendment.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement as of November 28th, 2016.


 





	 	Oramed Ltd.
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Nadav Kidron
	 	Nadav Kidron, CEO
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Yifat Zommer
	 	Yifat Zommer
Filed: April 23, 2001

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7396

(CR-90-74-A, CA-97-791-AM)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Henry Saunders,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed April 16, 2001, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3; and on page 2, line 7

of text -- the first district court number is corrected to read

“CR-90-74-A.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY SAUNDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-90-74-A, CA-97-791-AM)

Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999)

and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Saunders, Nos. CR-90-74-A; CA-97-791-AM

(E.D. Va. June 5 and Aug. 2, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     ERIN CAFARO, WINNING THE GOLD

  (Mr. DENHAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DENHAM. I rise today to honor Modesto native, two-time Olympian, 
and five-time U.S. National Team member Erin Cafaro, who this morning 
successfully defended, along with her teammates of the United States 
women's eight rowing team, the gold medal they won at the 2008 Beijing 
Olympics.
  Erin's victory today is the culmination of years of training, and it 
is an example of how personal dedication to a goal is the cornerstone 
of success.
  The London games are Erin's second Olympics, having first represented 
the team in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In 2008, Erin and the women's 
eight rowing team were the first to bring home a gold medal to the 
United States in this event. In this morning's race, faced with strong 
competition from Canada and the Netherlands, Team USA won in a time of 
6 minutes, 10.59 seconds.
  Erin Cafaro, you and your teammates have made Modesto, the State of 
California, and the Nation proud. Please accept my sincere 
congratulations on a gold medal today.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008223EN.01003702.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/37

---

Action brought on 14 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-312/08)

(2008/C 223/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC, of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC, of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 363, p. 141.

1

---
#### CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. v. KRUMM.

No. 34590.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 24, 1953.

Savage, Gibson & Benefield, by Wayne B. Snow, Oklahoma City, Roberson & Roberson, El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

Fogg, Fogg & Fogg, El Reno, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This case was consolidated for trial in the District Court of Canadian County with the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company v. Hale, No. 34,589, Okl.Sup., 254 P.2d 338, and the points involved in this appeal are identical with the points raised in Case No. 34,589, the only difference being that the defendant in error in this appeal was the owner of the land on which the alfalfa was grown. In case No. 34,589 Leonard E. Hale, defendant in error, was the lessee under an agricultural lease of the same land. The opinion promulgated in the latter case is applicable to this appeal, and the opinion in that case is hereby adopted as the opinion in this appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH,, CORN, ARNOLD, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.

HALLEY, C. J.,

dissents.

This court acknowledges the services of Attorneys C. E. Bailey, F. Hiner Dale and Wade H. Loofburrow, who as Special Masters aided in the preparation of this-opinion. These attorneys were recommended by the Oklahoma Bar Association, approved by the Judicial Council, and appointed by the Court.