alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009044EN.01007403.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/74

---

Action brought on 3 November 2008 — P v Parliament

(Case F-89/08)

(2009/C 44/132)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Parliament's decision to dismiss the applicant with three months' notice and also a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the Parliament's decision of 15 April 2008 to dismiss the applicant with three months' notice and immediately to deny him access to the Parliament, ordering him to return his office keys as soon as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the Parliament's decision of 15 April 2008 to dismiss the applicant with three months' notice and immediately to deny him access to the Parliament, ordering him to return his office keys as soon as possible;

| — | in consequence, reinstatement of the applicant forthwith in his duties, in the post and at the grade that were his at the time of the decision of 15 April 2008, with retroactive effect, and payment of his salary from 15 July 2008 until the date of his actual reinstatement, with default interest at the rate of 7 % per annum; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, reinstatement of the applicant forthwith in his duties, in the post and at the grade that were his at the time of the decision of 15 April 2008, with retroactive effect, and payment of his salary from 15 July 2008 until the date of his actual reinstatement, with default interest at the rate of 7 % per annum;

| — | an order that the defendant should pay, by way of compensation for non-material damage and prejudice to his career, the sum of EUR 10 000, subject to any increase and/or decrease during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the defendant should pay, by way of compensation for non-material damage and prejudice to his career, the sum of EUR 10 000, subject to any increase and/or decrease during the proceedings;

| — | an order that the European Parliament should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the European Parliament should pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF 
                                BENEFITS

  Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were 
submitted as follows:

       The amendment to be offered by Representative Levin, or a 
     designee to H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession 
     Prevention Act of 2012, does not contain any congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
     defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
       The amendment to be offered by Representative Slaughter, or 
     a designee to H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through 
     a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012, does not contain any 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 3009: Mr. Ross of Florida.
```
#### Napoleon CURRY, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-13135.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 28, 1962.

*578Ryan Kerr, Altus, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Loys Cris-well, County Atty. Jackson County, Altus, for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Napoleon Curry, defendant below, was charged by information in the district court of Jackson County, Oklahoma, with the crime of murder, allegedly .committed on April 1, 1960. He was tried by a jury) convicted of first degree manslaughter and his punishment fixed at 45 years in .the State Penitentiary; Judgment and sentence was entered in' keep--ing with the verdict, and appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The case was assigned for oral argument, without briefs having been filed, and was argued to the Court on February *7,*1961, and submitted on the record and oral argument.

We have carefully examined and considered the record before us, and find no fundamental error in the record.

The only argument advanced by counsel for defendant was a plea for modification of the sentence. The jury fixed the penalty, as was their right so to do, and the penalty assessed is within the limits of the law. The record presents this case as one of premeditated killing. The defendant is fortunate to escape with a manslaughter conviction.

Finding no justifiable basis for modification of the judgment and sentence imposed herein, the same is affirmed.

NIX, P. J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,832
<PP&E>                                           7,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               10
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,604
<SALES>                                         37,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,188
<CGS>                                           23,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,829
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,007)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,013)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,013)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.95)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Gillum, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered November 17, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The transcript of the plea proceeding reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to *929appeal as an essential condition of a favorable plea agreement. Accordingly, the issues sought to be raised by way of his motion to reduce his sentence and by way of his supplemental *pro se*brief are not properly before this court *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1; *People v Wittaker,*170 AD2d 554; *People v Johnson,*158 AD2d 620). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kooper, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 8

List of Principal Subsidiaries of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited



|                                                              |  |                        |     |  |                            |  |        | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | ------ | 
|Subsidiary Name                                               |  | Place of Incorporation |     |  | Our ownership interest (%) | 
|Shanghai Petrochemical Investment Development Company Limited |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 100.00 | 
|China Jinshan Associated Trading Corporation                  |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 67.33  | 
|Shanghai Jinchang Engineering Plastics Company Limited        |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 74.25  | 
|Shanghai Golden Phillips Petrochemical Company Limited        |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 60.00  | 
|Zhejiang Jin Yong Acrylic Fiber Company Limited               |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 75.00  | 
|Shanghai Jinshan Trading Corporation                          |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 67.33  | 
|Shanghai Golden Conti Petrochemical Company Limited           |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 100.00 |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 5, 2020

s0602 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2020

159434

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159434

COA: 338889

Wayne CC: 16

- 002600

- FC

JAMAR WALKER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2 019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of People v Davis (Docket No. 160775) is pending on appeal before this Court and

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present appl ication for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
# Lowndes - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Golden Triangle Planning and Development District Executive Director Rupert L. Johnson Email &#114;j&#111;h&#110;s&#x6f;n&#x40;g&#x74;p&#x64;d&#x2e;c&#x6f;mThe post Golden Triangle Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONALD CARL ENYEART,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 319 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Procter & Gamble v OHIM – Laboratorios Alcala Farma
(oli)**

**(Case T-240/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community mark oli – Earlier Community word marks OLAY – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 45, 54)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL |
| Community trade mark sought: | The figurative mark oli for goods in Classes 3 and 5 – Application No 4059176 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The Procter & Gamble Company |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The Community trade marks OLAY for goods in Classes 3 and 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C.  Eugene  Olsen,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Command  Center,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  do hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to my
knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31,  2006,  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 12, 2006

/s/C. Eugene Olsen
-----------------------
C. Eugene Olsen
Chief Financial Officer


                                 10-QSB Page 19
March 2022

There were 10 surveillance inspections conducted at 8 different sites for a total of 98

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures began to rise in response to the warmer air 

temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. Routine harvest continued. No cages were 

confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

April 2021 50 0 23647

May 2021 90 0 23737

June 2021 120 0 23857

July 2021 110 0 23967

August 2021 122 0 24089

September 2021 99 0 24188

October 2021 84 0 24272

November 2021 89 0 24361

December 2021 80 0 24441

January 2022 80 0 24521

February 2022 90 0 24611

March 2022 98 0 24709
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES B. RENACCI

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 538 and 539, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on both.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2020068EN.01004101.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/41

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — E. M., M. S. v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-414/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/49)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
USDA APHIS

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

Data Source:

USDA, Forest Service,

Forest Health Assessment &

Applied Sciences Team

(FHAAST), APHIS-PPQ

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service APPROXIMATE RANGE OF ASH SPECIES IN THE CONTIGUOUS U.S. WITH EAB POSITIVES -- MARCH 27, 2023

Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis)

0 200 400

Miles

0 200 400

Kilometers

Date Created:

3/27/2023

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Initial EAB County Detection

Potential Urban Ash Distribution

Ash Distribution

Approximate Range of Ash

Area of CONUS Ash Range:

~ 1,812,016 sq mi

Total Area of Counties where EAB is Present:

745,344 sq mi

For FHAAST Species Distribution Maps, CLICK HERE
# C_2021044EN.01004003.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete

(Case C-731/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019

---
#### Application of Willie HIGH for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order Admitting Petitioner to Bail.

A-13088.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 4, 1961.

*567Haskell Paul, Pauls Valley, Purman Wilson, Purcell, for petitioner. ■

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hildred Mein-ders, County Atty., Carroll J. Moody, Asst. County Atty., Pauls Valley, for respondent.

NIX, Presiding Judge.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus instituted by the petitioner, Willie High, for the purpose of being admitted to bail upon a charge of murder now pending against him in the District Court of Garvin County.

The petition alleges that the said Willie High is restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Garvin County by reason of a commitment issued by an examining magistrate committing him to the county jail after preliminary examination had upon a complaint wherein the petitioner Willie High was charged with the crime of murder; and that by information filed in the District Court of Garvin County he is charged with the crime of murder; that under the evidence produced on his preliminary examination the proof of his guilt is not evident nor the presumption thereof great that petitioner is guilty of murder; that petitioner has made application to be admitted to bail to the District Court of Garvin County, which application was by said court denied.

Without expressing any opinion upon the weight of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the evidence produced upon the preliminary examination was sufficient to warrant committing petitioner for trial upon the crime of murder. We are also of the opinion that under the testimony submitted and after consideration of the evidence presented in open court, that the petitioner has made a sufficient showing to be entitled to bail. Application of Worley, Okl.Cr., 350 P.2d 519; Ex parte Christenberry, 82 Okl.Cr. 378, 170 P.2d 871.

It is therefore ordered that the petitioner be admitted to bail in the sum of $20,000, said bond to be conditioned as provided by law, to be approved by the Court clerk of Garvin County; that when said bond is given and approved by the court clerk of said county that petitioner be discharged from custody, pending the action of the district court of Garvin County. .

-BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
#### MORRIS N. SCHARF, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. RECORDER’S COURT OF THE BOROUGH OF RAMSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued November 1, 1948

Decided November 8, 1948.

*Mr. John W. Ockford*argued the cause for the prosecutor-.appellant *(Mr. Morris N. Scharf,*pro se, and *Mr. Milton T. Lasher,*attorneys).

*Mr. James A. Major*argued the cause for the defendants-respondents *(Mr. Romeo R. Napolitano,*attorney).

Per Curiam.

The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Colie in the Court helow.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Waoheneeld, Burling and *Aokerson—7.*

*For reversal:*None.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4262 

To authorize members and former members of the uniformed services who 

are entitled to veterans disability compensation to continue to participate 

in the Thrift Savings Plan through the deduction and deposit of a 

percentage of their veterans disability compensation to the Thrift Savings 

Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2017 

Mr. WALKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To authorize members and former members of the uniformed 

services who are entitled to veterans disability compensation to continue to participate in the Thrift Savings 

Plan through the deduction and deposit of a percentage 

of their veterans disability compensation to the Thrift 

Savings Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financial Independ5 ence for Disabled Veterans Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4262 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISABLED VETERANS CONTINUED PARTICIPATION 

2 IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN. 

3 (a) PARTICIPATION AUTHORIZED.—The Executive 

4 Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 

5 Board shall prescribe regulations to permit the continued 

6 participation in the Thrift Savings Plan by a member of 

7 the uniformed services after the discharge or release of 

8 the member from service in the uniformed services if the 

9 member or former member is entitled to veterans disability 

10 compensation. 

11 (b) CONTRIBUTIONS.—For purposes of section 8432 

12 of title 5, United States Code, the monthly veterans dis13 ability compensation of a member or former member of 

14 the uniformed services shall be deemed to be basic pay 

15 for a monthly pay period. 

16 (c) MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS PROHIBITED.—The 

17 deduction and deposit in the Thrift Savings Fund of a 

18 percentage of the veterans disability compensation of a 

19 member or former member of the uniformed services does 

20 not require or authorize Government contributions under 

21 section 8432 of title 5, United States Code, or any other 

22 provision of law. 

23 (d) VETERANS DISABILITY COMPENSATION DE24 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘veterans disability 

25 compensation’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘comVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:32 Nov 07, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4262.IH H4262

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4262 IH

1 pensation’’ in section 101(13) of title 38, United States 

2 Code. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS