alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40978 Conference Calendar

__________________ JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERT J. PARKER, Warden, Ellis I; ROBERT HERREA, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; ALBERT GILBERT, AD-SEG Food Service Supervisor, Michael Unit; TERESSA SMITH, Officer, Michael Unit; MOLLIE JOHNSON, Nurse, Michael Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-495

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph Johnson appeals the dismissal of his claims that prison officials and employees were deliberately indifferent to his dietary needs and his safety. He also appeals the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. We lack jurisdiction to consider Johnson's contentions regarding the dismissal of his deliberate-indifference claimsNo. 95-40978 -2- because the district court's order adjudicates fewer than all of Johnson's claims. See Sherri A.D. v. Kirby , 975 F.2d 193, 201 (5th Cir. 1992); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co. , 849 F.2d 955, 967 (5th Cir. 1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(b). Denial of a TRO is not appealable. In re Lieb , 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). By making no arguments on appeal regarding his alleged placement in administrative segregation, Johnson has abandoned that issue. In re Municipal Bond Reporting Antitrust Litigation , 672 F.2d 436, 439 n.6 (5th Cir. 1982). Johnson has not shown that a preliminary injunction was improperly denied. Lakedreams v. Taylor , 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). We caution Johnson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Johnson is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
# C_2011139EN.01000201.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan

(Case C-109/09) (1)

1

(Fixed-term employment contract - Directive 1999/70/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Role of the national court)

2011/C 139/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Gertraud Kumpan

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation, first, of Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and, second, of Clause 5(1) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Prohibition on age discrimination — National legislation allowing fixed-term employment contracts on the sole condition that the worker has reached the age of 58 — Compatibility of that legislation with the above-cited provisions — Legal consequences of any incompatibility

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’, provided for in Paragraph 14(3) of the Law on part-time employment and fixed-term employment contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge) of 21 December 2000, must be applied to situations in which a fixed-term contract has not been immediately preceded by a contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer and an interval of several years separates those contracts, where, for that entire period, the initial employment relationship continued for the same activity, with the same employer, by means of an uninterrupted succession of fixed-term contracts. It is for the national court, to the fullest extent possible, to interpret the relevant provisions of national law in such a way as to comply with Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
# C_2009282EN.01006501.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/65

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-56/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Primary cover for dependent children by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Lack of complaint - Manifest inadmissibility)

2009/C 282/123

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that his children be entitled to primary insurance cover

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action brought by Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action brought by Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209 of 15.08.08, p. 74.

1

---
exv4w3



 





  Exhibit 4.3




[FACE OF CERTIFICATE]



BDE

THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE

IN NEW YORK, NY



[LOGO/]BOIS d’ARC ENERGY, INC.



INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CUSIP 09738U 10 3



SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of fully paid and non-assessable shares of the Common Stock of $0.01 value, of
BOIS d’ARC ENERGY, INC. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in
person or by attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.




This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent.
In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be executed by the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers under the facsimile Seal of the Corporation.




Dated:



/s/



SECRETARY

[SEAL]
 


/s/

PRESIDENT

COUNTERSIGNED:



AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY



TRANSFER AGENT

BY

AUTHORIZED OFFICER



[REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]

BOIS d’ARC ENERGY, INC.



AT SUCH TIME AS THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SHARES OF MORE THAN ONE CLASS, IT WILL

FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER UPON REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A

FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF

EACH CLASS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED AND THE VARIATIONS IN THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES

BETWEEN THE SHARES OF EACH SERIES OF ANY PREFERRED OR SPECIAL CLASS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED IN

SERIES, SO FAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN FIXED AND DETERMINED, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS TO FIX AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF SUBSEQUENT SERIES OF ANY

PREFERRED OR SPECIAL CLASS.



The following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:



TEN COM — as tenants in common

TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties

JT TEN — as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common



UNIF GIFT MIN ACT– (Cust) Custodian (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State)



Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.



For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto



PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)



shares of the capital stock
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint



 









 





Attorney to transfer the said
stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.



Dated



Signature(s) Guaranteed:



THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, AS DEFINED IN RULE

17Ad-15 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.



NOTICE:THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE

FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE

WHATEVER.
#### In the Matter of Patricia Raben et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Board of Education of the Hauppauge Union Free School District, Appellant-Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the Board of Education of the Hauppauge Union Free School District appeals from (1) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.), dated June 20, 1989, as directed the appointment of the petitioners to full-time elementary teaching positions, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated October 24, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, and the petitioners cross-appeal from so much of the judgment dated June 20, 1989, as ordered their reinstatement without retroactive pay and benefits. The cross appeal by the petitioners brings up for review so much of the order dated October 24, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination *(see,*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the judgment dated June 20, 1989, are dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the order dated October 24, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

*287Ordered that the order dated October 24, 1989, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the judgment dated June 20, 1989, is vacated, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant-respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Board of Education of the Hauppauge Union Free School District "abolished” the positions held by the petitioners, who were elementary school teachers, and the positions were terminated "effective June 30, 1981”. The petitioners’ names were placed on a "Preferred Eligibility List” and, thus, they were entitled to be reinstated if vacancies arose within seven years from the date of the abolition of their positions *(see,*Education Law § 2510 [3]). Subsequently, several teachers resigned from their positions as elementary school teachers "on June 30, 1988”.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, we find that their rights to be reinstated expired prior to the time in which the aforenoted vacancies arose. As indicated, their positions were abolished on June 30, 1981, the "effective” date of their termination. Since the resigning teachers were paid through June 30, 1988, the vacancies in their positions arose at the earliest on July 1, 1988, the first date on which the positions were not filled *(see, Matter of Brewer v Board of Educ.,*51 NY2d 855, 858; *see also, Matter of Lombardo v Baldwin Union Free School Dist.,*150 AD2d 452). Therefore, the period of seven years from the "abolition date” within which the petitioners had a right to be reinstated ended at midnight on June 30, 1988, just before the vacancies came into being *(see,*General Construction Law §§ 19, 20, 58).

In light of the foregoing, we need not address the parties’ other contentions. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1104 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1104

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

  Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Risch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING GIBSON DAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of section 13 of 
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12478-003, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') may, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence construction of the 
project for a 6-year period that begins on the date described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Date Described.--The date described in this subsection is the 
date of the expiration of the extension of the period required for 
commencement of construction for the project described in subsection 
(a) that was issued by the Commission prior to the date of enactment of 
this Act under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the Company) for the period
ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John W. Gibson, Chief Executive 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:

(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.





|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ John W. Gibson                    
|John W. Gibson Chief Executive
Officer

February 27, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to ONEOK Partners, L.P. and will be retained by ONEOK Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2008272EN.01004201.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/42

---

Action brought on 25 August 2008 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission

(Case T-344/08)

(2008/C 272/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Bach and A. Hahn, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear);

| — | in the alternative, annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as the Commission also refused the applicant partial access to the documents on the file; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Commission Decision D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 concerning a request for access to the administrative files in Case COMP/F/38.899 (Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as the Commission also refused the applicant partial access to the documents on the file;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 16 June 2008 rejecting the applicant's second request for access to documents on the Commission's file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear.

The applicant advances three pleas in support of its application.

First of all, the applicant alleges an infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), since the exceptions laid down in those provisions were misinterpreted or misapplied. Further, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicant has an overriding public interest in access to the file in Case COMP/F/38.899. Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since the applicant ought to have been allowed to consult at least part of the documentation included in the file in Case COMP/F/38.899.

1

---

(1)  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).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4528 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4528

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
    To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                    statutes, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012.
    Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 
1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and retained'' after ``landed''.
SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010.
    The Act entitled ``An Act to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks'', approved 
January 4, 2011 (Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668), is amended--
        (1) by striking section 104 and inserting the following:
    ``SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
    ``Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall 
be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the 
authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation 
and management measures as the Secretary considers necessary and 
appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 
1854(g)).''; and
        (2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to section 104 
    and inserting the following:

``Sec. 104. Rule of construction.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Samyak Veera, Chief Executive Officer and I, Tristan R. Farel, Chief Financial Officer of New Frontier Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of New Frontier Energy, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.
 
 Date:   March 4, 2010
  /s/ Samyak VeeraSamyak Veera,Chief Executive Officer/s/ Tristan R. FarelTristan R. Farel,Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors of
Timeline, Inc.

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-4386 and 333-2190) on Form S-8 of Timeline, Inc. of our
report dated June 21, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Timeline, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive
loss and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the March
31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Timeline, Inc.

      Our report dated June 21, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses and negative cash flows
from operations and has a net working capital deficit of $448,937 at March 31,
2002, that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments
that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Seattle, Washington
July 1, 2002


                                    Page 47