alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014462EN.01003301.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB

st

(Case F-55/08 RENV) (1)

1

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Appraisal - Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee - No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation))

(2014/C 462/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for partial annulment of a decision of the Appeals Committee concerning the applicant’s appraisal in respect of 2006 and, secondly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant must cease the activities constituting harassment and pay compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report in respect of 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report in respect of 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the psychological harassment;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15/8/2008, p. 73.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00659-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF O.K. IV, a Child,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00140

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, Appellant’s 

court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious 

issues to raise on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re R.R., No. 04-

03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) 

(applying Anders procedure in a parental rights termination appeal). Counsel informed 

Appellant of her right to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Appellant with a pro se 

motion for access to the appellate record, addressed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, that lacks

only Appellant’s dated signature. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). 

The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless Appellant 

files a pro se brief.

If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within 

TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro 

se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than TWENTY DAYS after the date 

Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this 

court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2008079EN.01001901.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

(Case C-18/08)

(2008/C 79/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Defendant:

Question referred

Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) provides for the possibility for a Member State to exempt certain categories of vehicle. In this context, is the authorisation given to France by the Commission on 20 June 2005 (2), in Decision 2005/449/EC, to exempt certain categories of vehicles directly applicable to individuals or, as it concerns an authorisation decision addressed to France, is a measure transposing it into national law necessary?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42.

1

(2)  2005/449/EC: Commission Decision of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23).

2

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5969-S5970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     TRIBUTE TO DR. ROBIN W. MORGAN

 Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I 
wish to honor the exemplary service of Dr. Robin W. Morgan as the dean 
of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University 
of Delaware. For the past 10 years, Dr. Morgan has played an 
instrumental role in the expansion of agricultural research in her 
department and the development of higher education in our State. As she 
steps down from her position as dean to rejoin the University of 
Delaware's faculty, I give my most sincere thanks to her and her staff 
for their diligent and enduring efforts to maintain the College of 
Agriculture and Natural Resources' reputation as one of the best in the 
Nation.
  Throughout her tenure as dean, Dr. Morgan conducted many studies that 
highlighted the substantial contribution of agriculture to Delaware's 
economy. Through her research and professional leadership, she has 
relentlessly

[[Page S5970]]

supported agriculture in Delaware and has emphasized its importance to 
the financial well-being of our State. Dr. Morgan has always taken 
great pride in her faculty, which brings new skills, ideas, and 
innovation in various fields to the future of agriculture and natural 
resources. Over the past decade, under Dean Morgan's guidance, the 
number of undergraduate applications to the College of Agriculture and 
Natural Resources has doubled. The high caliber of hired faculty and 
Dr. Morgan's persistence in rebuilding several University of Delaware 
greenhouses has been pivotal to the growth of the program.
  I wholeheartedly thank Dr. Robin W. Morgan for her service as dean of 
the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of 
Delaware. Her model leadership and dedication improved the quality of 
education and research offered within her department. I wish her the 
best of luck as she steps down to pursue other research and teaching 
endeavors at the University of Delaware.

                          ____________________
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 144 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-119, CP2024-125.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28059 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  of Webb  Mortgage  Depot,  Inc.  (the
"Corporation")  for the  year  ended  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  the  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Corporation
certifies that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Corporation.

/s/ Byron Webb
-------------------------------------
Byron Webb
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2005
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                       CONSENT OF SPROULE ASSOCIATES, INC.


                      [SPROULE ASSOCIATES INC. LETTERHEAD]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


We hereby consent to the incorporation of our reserve report regarding the
interests of Coho Energy, Inc. (the Company) dated March 6, 2001, relating to
estimated quantities of certain of the Company's proved reserves of oil and gas
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000
into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3, file
number 333-52632 dated December 22, 2000, as amended January 3, 2001.



/s/ SPROULE ASSOCIATES INC.

SPROULE ASSOCIATES INC.

Geological and Petroleum Engineering Consultants


Denver, Colorado

April 27, 2001
Abatement Order filed February 27, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00838-CR

____________

JEREL CHINEDU IGBOJI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCR-072102

ABATEMENT ORDER

The reporter’s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has 

informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee to prepare the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). 

This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment 

of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following 

order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).
We ORDER the judge of the 240th District Court to immediately conduct a 

hearing at which appellant, appellant’s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall 

participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether 

appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent 

and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may 

appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record 

of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall 

order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the 

hearing, the court’s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, if 

any, containing a recording of the video teleconference shall be filed with the clerk 

of this court within thirty days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also 

consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the 

court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party 

seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule 

a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, 

the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties 

of such date.

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Daniel MURO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1585

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1976.

*1340Roy R. Barrera, Richard Meyer, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

John E. Clark, U.S. Atty., W. Ray Jahn, LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir., *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, Jose Daniel Muro appeals on the ground that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error.

Muro was indicted and tried with co-conspirator Michael Martinez. He contends that his case was prejudiced because during the trial, the Government showed that Martinez made a statement after arrest and after termination of the conspiracy that his role was to act as lookout during a transaction and that he was to be paid $500. The testimony did not relate to Muro who requested, and received, an immediate instruction that the evidence related only to Martinez and had nothing to do with the case against Muro.

Severance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. *United States v. Crockett,*514 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1975); *United States v. Miller,*513 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1975); *United States v. Beasley,*513 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1975). Even a confession implicating a co-defendant may be admitted in a joint trial if references to the co-defendant are deleted. *United States v. Gray,*462 F.2d 164 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*409 U.S. 1009, 93 S.Ct. 452, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972); *Posey v. United States,*416 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1969), *cert. denied,*397 U.S. 946, 90 S.Ct. 964, 25 L.Ed.2d 127 (1970).

Muro was not reversibly prejudiced by Martinez’ statement. It contained no reference to Muro, Martinez denied making the statement, and Muro had the opportunity to cross-examine. *United States v. Sims,*434 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1970). The evidence against Muro was sufficiently strong so that possibility of prejudice to him was too remote to be considered. *See United States v. Killian,*524 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1975); *White v. United States,*415 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969), *cert. denied,*397 U.S. 993, 90 S.Ct. 1128, 25 L.Ed.2d 400 (1970).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009167EN.01000802.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-418/08) (1)

1

2009/C 167/17

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barbara Holmes, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that her waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective because she was not properly "held * * * for the action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.10 [1] [a]) in compliance with the requirements of CPL 180.30 (1) and *651180.70 (1). Defendant asserts that there is no proof that County Court ever received the appropriate papers required for the transfer of jurisdiction from the local criminal court to the superior court *(see,*CPL 180.30 [1]; 180.70 [1]). On the record before us, defendant has failed to prove that the requisite papers were not transmitted. Defendant also argues that, with respect to the Town of Sennett matter upon which her plea of guilty to burglary in the second degree was based, her waiver of her right to a preliminary hearing was invalid because it was made in the absence of counsel *(see, People v Hodge,*53 NY2d 313, 319-320). Even if that argument were deemed preserved, we find that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting therefrom *(see, People v Wicks,*76 NY2d 128, *rearg denied*76 NY2d 773).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2008313EN.01005901.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/59

---

Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Wenig v Commission

(Case F-80/08)

(2008/C 313/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwe Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: G.-A. Dal, D. Voillemot, D. Bosquet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 18 September 2008 to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration, pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 18 September 2008 to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration, pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 § 8 Sales and use taxes. Sec. 8. Except as provided in this section, the Legislature shall not impose a sales tax on retailers at a rate of more than 4% of their gross taxable sales of tangible personal property. Beginning May 1, 1994, the sales tax shall be imposed on retailers at an additional rate of 2% of their gross taxable sales of tangible personal property not exempt by law and the use tax at an additional rate of 2%. The proceeds of the sales and use taxes imposed at the additional rate of 2% shall be deposited in the state school aid fund established in section 11 of this article. The allocation of sales tax revenue required or authorized by sections 9 and 10 of this article does not apply to the revenue from the sales tax imposed at the additional rate of 2%. No sales tax or use tax shall be charged or collected from and after January 1, 1975 on the sale or use of prescription drugs for human use, or on the sale or use of food for human consumption except in the case of prepared food intended for immediate consumption as defined by law. This provision shall not apply to alcoholic beverages. History: Const. 1963, Art. IX, § 8, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964;

 Am. Initiated Law, approved Nov. 5, 1974, Eff. Dec. 21, 1974;

 Am. S.J.R. S, approved Mar. 15, 1994, Eff. Apr. 30, 1994. Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. X, § 23.

Rendered Thursday, September 17, 2015 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 130 of 2015  Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov
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 RAYJR. 'Jr. Ct?No. WO^S^i-AW* FROM2WK*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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Mark R. Warner led the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```