alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornelius Stephens, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

As part of his plea bargain, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and also withdrew any and all motions, whether pending or decided. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1; *People v Middleton,*163 AD2d 615; *People v Barn-well,*161 AD2d 771).

In any event, contrary to the defendant’s argument, the court did not err in denying his *pro se*motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court had the benefit of the defendant’s motion papers, and the record indicates that the defendant was afforded a more than ample opportunity to substantiate his assertions prior to sentencing *(see, People v Rodriguez,*150 AD2d 812; *People v Brown,*142 AD2d 683). Neither the defendant’s bare assertions of innocence nor his meritless claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was sufficient to justify setting aside the guilty plea. Moreover, the record also shows that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete and detailed plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel — with whom the defendant had expressed satisfaction at the time of the plea — after the court had fully apprised the defendant of the consequences of his plea *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### FRANK v. HERRON et al.

No. 36164.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 20, 1953.

Swank & Swank, Stillwater, for plaintiff in error.

Winfrey D. Houston, Guy L. Horton and Henry W. Hoel, all of Stillwater, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court overruling a motion for new trial and is brought by E. J. Frank, plaintiff in error, against Leonard G. Herron ■and others to review the order overruling the motion for new trial. ■

This order was entered on May 8, 1953. At the time it was entered Kenneth Hughes, assigned Judge, entered the order and gave an extension of time in which to make and serve case-made. Thereafter, on the 19th day of June, 1953, Kenneth Hughes entered an order granting additional time in which to file the case in the Supreme Court, extending time for said filing until September 5, 1953. This order was after the time for the assignment of Kenneth Hughes as trial judge had expired. Thereafter the trial court entered an order dated- August 14, 1953. This order was made to serve'two purposes.- First, it authorized the extension of time in which to make and serve case-made for the reason the party appealing had been unavoidably prevented from preparing the case-made within the original time. %It also attempted to authorize the filing of the case in the Supreme Court after the expiration of three *451months allowed by statute. This order, in so far as it attempted to extend the. time for appeal, was invalid. Adams v. Hobbs, 204 Okl. 85, 226 P.2d 913, and Durham v. Sharum, 203 Okl. 426, 222 P.2d 1029.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason the case was not filed in the Supreme Court within three months from the order entered on May 8, 1953, or any valid order extending the time in which to file the appeal. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. An order entered by the assigned judge after the expiration date of the assignment purporting to extend the time for service of a case-made is void. Graf Packing Co. v. Palphrey, 178 Okl. 95, 62 P.2d 53. Under the holding of that case and related cases a trial judge specially assigned cannot perform the functions of a court or trial judge other than to settle the case-made in a case which he tried. The order of June 19, 1953, in so far as it attempted to extend the time for the appeal was likewise void.

Since the appeal was not filed within three months from the date of the order entered May 8, 1953, or any valid order extending the time, the appeal is dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, ARNOLD, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
# C_2008272EN.01004601.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/46

---

Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-360/08)

(2008/C 272/90)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Disapply the Guidelines for determining the financial corrections applicable to expenses co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in the event of failure to comply with the public procurement rules, final version of 29 November 2007, COCOF 07/0037/03-ES, |
| --- | --- |

—

Disapply the Guidelines for determining the financial corrections applicable to expenses co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in the event of failure to comply with the public procurement rules, final version of 29 November 2007, COCOF 07/0037/03-ES,

| — | annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 25 June 2008, C(2008) 3247, in so far as it reduces financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to project group No 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.036 (cleaning of the Hydrographic Basin of the North — Galicia-2001), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 25 June 2008, C(2008) 3247, in so far as it reduces financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to project group No 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.036 (cleaning of the Hydrographic Basin of the North — Galicia-2001), and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

This dispute concerns a group of projects for the improvement of existing and newly-constructed pumping stations, the expansion, conditioning and improvement of the drainage network and cleaning, situated in various parts of Galicia. The Community co-financing initially granted by the Commission amounted to 80 % of the public cost eligible for subsidy.

In July 2007, the Commission sent a letter to the applicant suggesting corrections to remedy the irregularities that came to light during an earlier audit. The conclusions of the letter specified the two irregularities which together provided the reason for the contested decision and the corresponding proposals for financial corrections: the incorrect use of the emergency procedure in relation to a procurement contract and the wrong use of experience as an award criterion for various contracts. The proposals for financial correction amount to EUR 697 901 and EUR 354 591 respectively.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-359/08 Spain v Commission.

Spain

Commission

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          511,552
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   5,048,531
<ALLOWANCES>                    500,000
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,835,115
<PP&E>                          6,796,204
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,892,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  12,550,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,996,740
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        37,689
<OTHER-SE>                      2,499,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    12,550,752
<SALES>                         13,581,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                13,581,298
<CGS>                           13,366,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   13,948,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                7,671,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              172,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (8,350,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (1,200,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (7,150,867)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (7,150,867)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (2.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (2.21)



</TABLE>
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

___________________________ ) In The Matter of ) ) Docket No. OST-2013-0048 ) Agreement Adopted by the ) Passenger Services Conference ) Of the International Air ) Transport Association as ) Resolution 787 ) __________________________ )

MOTION OF OPEN ALLIES FOR AIRFARE TRANSPARENCY FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OTHERW ISE UNAUTHORIZED DOCUMENT Open Allies for Airfare Transparency (“Open Allies”) hereby moves, pursuant to Section 302.6(c) of the Department’s Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(c), for leave to file a Surreply (which is being filing contemporaneously herewith) to the June 21, 2013 Reply of the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) . Open Allies respectfully submits that the Department should accept this Surreply because it will assist the Depart ment’s understanding of the issues and help to ensure a complete and accu rate record in the case. Notably, in its Reply, IATA proposes for the first time significant cond itions to any approval by the Department of Resolution 787. The Surreply includes a discussion of the proposed conditions. On June 5, 2013, Open Allies filed a Supplementa l Answer in this proceeding. As stated in that pleading, the Supplemental Answer was filed because of action taken by IATA two days before that seemed to have a bearing on IA TA’s Application (i.e ., the adoption by the 69 th IATA Annual General Meeting of another resolution on NDC). In its Reply, IATA questions the propriety of that filing because it was not acco mpanied by a motion. To avoid any question in this regard, Open Allies hereby moves the Depa rtment also to accept its Supplemental Answer,which provides information that will clarify the issues in this proceeding and develop a more complete record.

July 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

# fJ

I 

# r \ 

# irrofUJ**V~rsi ~**  Andrew Weinstein Executive Director Open Allies for Airfare Transparency 913 S Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-667-4967 andrewwstn@gmail.com

- 2 -
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5716-H5717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. KUCINICH:
       H.R. 6357.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:

[[Page H5717]]

       The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is 
     Article XIV of the Constitution, which enumerates that no 
     United States Citizen can be ``deprived of life, liberty, 
     property, without due process of law.'' The bill will assert 
     Congress' responsibility to defend the rights included in the 
     Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
```
# C_2021079EN.01000801.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against OM

(Case C-393/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to an effective remedy - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA - Confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property - Directive 2014/42/EU - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - National legislation providing for the confiscation, for the benefit of the State, of property used to commit the offence of smuggling - Property belonging to a third party acting in good faith)

(2021/C 79/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad — Plovdiv

Party in the main criminal proceedings

OM

Interveners in the main criminal proceedings: Okrazhna prokuratura — Haskovo, Apelativna prokuratura — Plovdiv

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation of an instrumentality used to commit an aggravated smuggling offence where that property belongs to a third party acting in good faith; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation of an instrumentality used to commit an aggravated smuggling offence where that property belongs to a third party acting in good faith;

| 2. | Article 4 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation, in the context of criminal proceedings, of property belonging to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without the former being afforded an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation, in the context of criminal proceedings, of property belonging to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without the former being afforded an effective remedy.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
**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 Quarterly Report of ZBB Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-QSB for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2008 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Robert J. Parry, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge, that:
 
 (1) The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to ZBB Energy Corporation and will be retained by ZBB Energy
        Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
        staff
        upon request.
 /s/ Robert
                J.
                ParryRobert
                J. Parry*(Principal
                Executive Officer)*
  May
        13,
        2008
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐36/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/16/EEC – Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner – Incorrect transposition

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Request seeking to have a Member State ordered
to take specific measures (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-10)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Doctors – Directive 93/16 (Council
Directive 93/16, Arts 30, 31 and 36) (see operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) – Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/2003 which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 63213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26484]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9934-54-Region 2]

New York State Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Notice 
of Final Determination; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of determination; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a document 
in the Federal Register of September 9, 2015, regarding the petition by 
New York State to establish a No Discharge Zone for the New York State 
waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River. The document 
contained an incomplete sentence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moses Chang, (212) 637-3867, email 
address: chang.moses@epa.gov.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 9, 2015, FR Document 2015-
22694 [FRL-9933-54-Region 2], on page 54281, in the second column, in 
line 9 from the bottom, the following sentence: ``These comments are 
consistent with New York's determination of need.'' is corrected to 
read: ``Therefore, while these comments are consistent with New York's 
determination of need, that determination is beyond the scope of EPA's 
review.''

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Moses Chang,
R2 No Discharge Zone Coordinator, Aquatic Biologist, EPA R2, Clean 
Water Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-26484 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ERIC FLORES, 

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00278-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

 IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Eric Flores, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to

order the Hon. Alma Trejo, Judge of the El Paso Criminal Court at Law No. 1, to allow him to

present, “non-frivolous legal claims in his writ of habeas corpus to challenge his illegal

confinement.”

In order to obtain relief through a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish: (1) no other

adequate remedy at law is available and (2) that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. Dickens

v. Court of Appeals For Second Supreme Judicial Dist. of Texas, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548

(Tex.Crim.App. 1987). An act is ministerial if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion.

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex.Crim.App.

2001). However, a so-called discretionary function may become ministerial when the facts and

circumstances dictate but one rational decision. Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 948 n.2

(Tex.Crim.App. 1992).

Based upon the petition and limited record provided to us, Flores has not established that he

does not have adequate remedies at law or that the acts he seeks to compel were ministerial. See
TEX.R.APP.P. 52.7. Therefore, Flores has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the relief he has

requested. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief.

October 16, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
# C_2010134EN.01000801.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-79/09) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 13 and 132 - Bodies governed by public law - Capacity as public authorities - Activities - Treatment as non-taxable persons - Exemptions - Socio-cultural, health and education sectors - ‘Euroregions’ - Promotion of work mobility - Making available of personnel - Burden of proof)

2010/C 134/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, D.J.M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1)(c), 13, 24(1) and 132 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Making available of personnel in the health, education and socio-cultural sectors — Promotion of work mobility — Euroregion

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129 of 6.6.2006.

1

---