alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010051EN.01003203.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 January 2010 — United Phosphorus v Commission

(Case T-95/09 R II)

(Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Extension of suspension of operation)

2010/C 51/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and N. Rasmussen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the extension of the suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The suspension of operation laid down in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T-95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 30 November 2010, but shall not extend beyond the date of delivery of the decision in the main proceedings or beyond the date of the formal conclusion of the accelerated procedure, initiated with regard to napropamide, under Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included in its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The suspension of operation laid down in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T-95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 30 November 2010, but shall not extend beyond the date of delivery of the decision in the main proceedings or beyond the date of the formal conclusion of the accelerated procedure, initiated with regard to napropamide, under Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included in its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5).

| 2. | The costs shall be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs shall be reserved.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-165-E (01) 

 § 

KYRON TRAVON McGRUDER § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

KYRON TRAVON McGRUDER, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 

261 (5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty

to Count 1 of the 1-Count Indictment, filed on April 26, 2022. After cautioning and examining 

Defendant Kyron Travon McGruder, under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, 

I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported 

by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore 

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that Defendant Kyron Travon McGruder, be adjudged 

guilty of Illegal Receipt of a Firearm by a Person Under Indictment, in violation of 18 USC § 922(n) 

and 924(a)(1)(D), and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the 

district judge. 

□ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

□ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear 

and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released. 

□ The Government does not oppose release. 

□ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

□ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to 

any other person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or 

(c).

□ The Government opposes release.

□ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

□ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

□ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there 

is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly 

shown under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released. 

 Signed May 25, 2023. ____________________________________ 

 REBECCA RUTHERFORD

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date 

of its service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United 

States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B).

Case 3:22-cr-00165-E Document 35 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 61
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                       734
<INVENTORY>                                     11,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,188
<PP&E>                                          27,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,376
<BONDS>                                          1,269
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,419
<SALES>                                         49,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,183
<CGS>                                           46,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,377)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.35)


</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cr-00167-P Document 19 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 53
Case 4:22-cr-00167-P Document 19 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 54
Case 4:22-cr-00153-O   Document 15   Filed 05/24/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 16Case 4:22-cr-00153-O   Document 15   Filed 05/24/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 16
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133139 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133139 COA: 264179 Oakland CC: 04-199112-FH ROBERT WILLIAM KATTULA-DOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
# Official Journal C 39/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 39 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 592 February 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 39

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 592 February 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 039/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7888 — APAX/B&G/Mannai/GFI Informatique) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 039/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7845 — HCL Technologies Sweden/Volvo IT) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 039/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7888 — APAX/B&G/Mannai/GFI Informatique) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 039/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7845 — HCL Technologies Sweden/Volvo IT) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 039/3 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 039/3

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 039/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7886 — PostFinance/SIX Group/SIX Paynet) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2016/C 039/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7939 — HDI Assicurazioni/CBA Vita/Sella Life) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 039/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7886 — PostFinance/SIX Group/SIX Paynet) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2016/C 039/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7939 — HDI Assicurazioni/CBA Vita/Sella Life) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew
Kang, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on
my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as
Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of
the depositor)Date:

March 30, 2017
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2015-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2016                 
|                                     
|/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL                
|Somsak Chivavibul                    
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Senior Securitization Officer)      
|Navient Funding, LLC
Order entered October 14 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00794

- CR
JORGE BARROQUIN

- TABARES, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. F13

- 53472

- V



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.
On October 2, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the
reporter’s record had not been filed. On October 14, 2015, we received the reporter’s record.

There fore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the October 2, 2015 order
requiring findings.
Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
1

United States District Court

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ARIANA GEORGE and RODNEY

BOONE, Individually and as 

Representative of the Estate of AMARI

BOONE, Deceased. 

§

§

§

§

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1124-S

§

ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES,

et al. 

§ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, SHEILA ROBERSON’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT LOCAL COUNSEL

On this day, came on to be considered, Defendant, Sheila Roberson’s Unopposed Motion 

for Leave to Proceed without Local Counsel. The Court after consideration of such Motion is of 

the opinion that such Motion should be granted. It is therefore, 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant, Sheila Roberson’s Unopposed 

Motion for Leave to Proceed without Local Counsel is GRANTED. It is further, 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that pursuant to Local Rule 83.10(a) H. 

Dwayne Newton of Newton, Jones & McNeely is GRANTED LEAVE to appear as lead counsel 

for Defendant, Sheila Roberson without associating local counsel.

Signed on this the ____ day of _____________________, 2022

___________________________________

HONORABLE KAREN GREN SCHOLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 3:22-cv-01124-S Document 12-1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 476
2

Case 3:22-cv-01124-S Document 12-1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 477
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AMANDA PRESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1018-X-BK

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. [Doc. 27]. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ 

erred by failing to conduct a meaningful judicial review of Plaintiff’s disability claim 

and recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 

reverse the Commissioner’s decision, and remand this case for further proceedings. 

No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court 

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 21] is 

GRANTED, and the Court REMANDS this case for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01018-X-BK Document 28 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1936
2

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01018-X-BK Document 28 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1937
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP INC., et al.,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney 

General of the United States, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW

I, Zachary Nelson, hereby move to withdraw as counsel for Defense Distributed and the 

Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. I have changed law firms and practice areas, and I am no 

longer involved in this case. Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation will 

continue being represented by Chad Flores and Nicholas M. Bruno of Beck Redden LLP, 1221 

McKinney St., Ste 4500, Houston, TX 77010-2010.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Zach Nelson .

Zachary Nelson

zach.nelson@lw.com

Texas Bar No. 24127240

Latham & Watkins LLP

811 Main St., Ste 3700

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (970).426.6315

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 189 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3920
Certificate of Conference

Local Rule 7.1(a) requires a conference with “an attorney for each party affected by the 

requested relief to determine whether the motion is opposed.” My withdrawal affects only Defense 

Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation. Accordingly, I conferred with their lead 

counsel, Chad Flores, via emails on February 23, 2023. Mr. Flores confirmed that neither party 

opposes my withdrawal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Zach Nelson .

Zachary Nelson

zach.nelson@lw.com

Texas Bar No. 24127240

Latham & Watkins LLP

811 Main St., Ste 3700

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (970).426.6315

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this submission was served on all counsel of record 

by the Court’s CM/ECF system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

March 6, 2023.

/s/ Zach Nelson .

Zachary Nelson

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 189 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3921