alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005132EN.01002401.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/24

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 March 2005

in Case T-29/02 Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Non-performance of contract - Counterclaim)

(2005/C 132/43)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-29/02: Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Storme and A. Gobien, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito, assisted by J. Stuyck) — application, based on an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 40 693 and issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 273 516, together with a counterclaim by the Commission that the applicant should be ordered to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 273 516, plus default interest at the rate of 7 % a year as from 1 September 2001 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi, E. Martins Ribeiro and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the applicant's claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 40 693 and for the issue of a credit note for EUR 273 516; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applicant's claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 40 693 and for the issue of a credit note for EUR 273 516;

| 2. | Upholds the Commission's counterclaim and, consequently, orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 273 516, plus default interest, at the annual statutory rate applicable in Belgium, from 1 September 2001 until full payment of the debt; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Upholds the Commission's counterclaim and, consequently, orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 273 516, plus default interest, at the annual statutory rate applicable in Belgium, from 1 September 2001 until full payment of the debt;

| 3. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.

1

---
# C_2005057EN.01004102.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/41

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-324/04 R

(2005/C 57/71)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 15 December 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-324/04 R, F v Commission of the European Communities.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00127

- CV

Christopher J. GALE

, Appellant

v.

Terri Lynn GALE , Stephani A. Walsh and Sara A. Herrmann,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 24190

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AN D JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is reinstated, the joint

motion to dismiss is granted, and this appe al is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(f).

Costs of appeal are taxed against the appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

SIGNED June 12, 2019.

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       16,974
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  6535
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             27,084
<PP&E>                                       97,003
<DEPRECIATION>                               (19,269)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               104,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        475,690
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     12,645
<OTHER-SE>                                   (370,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 104,818
<SALES>                                      85,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             72,119
<CGS>                                        13,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                461,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (389,123)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (389,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (389,123)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.03)




        

</TABLE>
-TOP-SECRET-

_At NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

MEMORANDUM FOR THE STAFF

I am very gratified to pass on the attached letters

from Mr. Bush and Mr. Plummer. Mr. Bush was very complimentary in his comments concerning our program. I am particularly pleased to read that he considers our program "one of

a very few premiere technical efforts in the nation." He

goes on to say that he felt our program "incorporates the

most efficient management, the most capable people, and the

most advanced equipment."

Each Staff member can feel justifiably proud of their

role in this program and the contributions that it is making

to the nation. Please insure these letters get the widest

dissemination possible throughout the Staff.

It should be noted, however, that despite the fact that

the letters are unstamped they should be handled as classified

sensitive information in that they reveal a relationship •

between CIA and this office.

Attachments

CLAIlIfilii jikOMPT MON

OINIOAL OYU Of ap_ggill_

avianws IS IOW EEEPTIOM CATE• 001111 SSE DlCLASSIPY ON OAP OE r.

CONTROL NO Internal

COPY OP COPIES

PAGE-lrop-1---PAGES
•

. .

• •

• I

. I • 4, •••

•

• • tilaro•••• •ALra••••• ••••••••••

•

•

•

s •• : . • •

• t

CENTRAL INTELLIGIENCE AGENCY

WASHINGTON. O. C. 2.011108

.3 March 1976

4

. 1 •

The Honorable James W. Plummer

ender Secretary of the Air Force

The Pentagon

Dear Jim:

•

We have completed the follow-up actions initiated by

the February Vest Coast trip, and have sent notes of thanks

to yoUr people involved. I want you to know how grateful I

as for the really first-rate support which you and your

people gave me and my staff. I especially want to mention

the orchestration provided by Dr. Cook and MAJ. Gen. Fulpa.

Their efforts were invaluable in maximising our education in

the short time available.

In reflecting on our trip and what we observed and learned,

it is clear to me that your Program is one of a very few

premiere technical efforts in the. nation. Everywhere it was

evident that the Program incorporatei the most efficient manage-.

meat, the most capable people, and the most advanced equipment.

To be its Director must be a great source of pride to you.

Hy thanks for making so much of it available to me on short:

notice.

amAst-- 4"771,444•4 $

04.4 *441' 

wow

34,1041t,weav

•••••••••••••••••..•

..111 • •

. .

• • •

•• • •

'

. •

I.

•

•

•

Very truly yoOrs,

G.

[..

•

I • gab

n••n•••n••••••• nn•n • • .• • nnn•••• ••,•,••••••••••••••=1. ••••••• v....v. •

ID •
•

•

ORIN= OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF TH•AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON 20330

9 March 1976

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. COOK

I was very pleased to receive the attached letter

from Mr. Bush concerning the outstanding support provided

during his recent visit to the West Coast. It is particularly significant that you and your people performed so

professionally on this, the DCI's first visit to one of

our facilities.

I would like to add my appreciation to•that of/tr.

' Bush for a fine job, on very short notice.. Pleaie pass

my thanks to everyone involved.

•

Attachment
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            252,958
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,127,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                       18,858
<INVENTORY>                                       896,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,302,870
<PP&E>                                            646,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                    902,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,960,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,273,550
<BONDS>                                             1,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           22,528
<OTHER-SE>                                        663,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,960,216
<SALES>                                           882,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,517,685
<CGS>                                             686,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,046,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   18,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 18,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (547,521)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (549,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (549,954)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.02)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|            |  |                            
|----------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:       |  |                            
|May 4, 2011 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|            |  |                            
|            |  | Marc N. Teal               
|            |  | Principal Financial Officer
|            |  |                            
|            |  |                            
|            |  |                            

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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. DAVID BARHAM.

*Indictment*— Profane *Swearing*— Nuisance.

1. An indictment for a nuisance by profanely swearing in a public place should set forth;

(1) That the offence was committed “in the *presence*and *hearing*■of divers persons then and there assembled,” and the general conclusion “ *ad communem nocumentum "*is not sufficient.

<3) That “ the acts were so repeated in public as to have become an annoyance and inconvenience to the public.”

(3) The profane words alleged to have - been used, so that the Court may decide as to their quality.

;3. An omission of any of these specifications is a fatal defect in the indictment, for which judgment will be arrested.

*(State v. Jones,*9 Ire. 38; *Pepper's*case, 68 N. C. 259; *Powell’s, 70*N. C. 67, cited and approved.)

Indictment for a Nuisance tried at May Term, 1878, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, *J.*

The facts material to the point decided are stated in the opinion. Motion in arrest was not made in the Court below. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by the defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. P. M.*Briggs, for the defendant.

*647Faircloth, J.

The bill of indictment alleges that the defendant *“*in the public streets in the city of Raleigh to the great nuisance of divers of the good people of the State, ■ then and there assembled, wilfully and wickedly, did curse' •..swear and blaspheme the name of Almighty God for a great space of time, for the space of one minute against the peace and dignity of the State.” The defendant moves for :an arrest of 'judgment .because he says the indictment

•charges no indictable offence. His Honor told the jury if they believed the evidence the defendant was guilty, and he was convicted. The sufficiency of the indictment then is the only question presented.

From the authorities and a train of our own decisions for more than a half century we are compelled to say that the indictment is fatally defective. In the cases now cited the •question has arisen in various aspects and the arguments and reasons are therein exhausted. We will not repeat them here but content ourselves with a few of the propositions we find well settled:—

1. It must be alleged that the offence was committed “in the *presence*and *hearing*of divers persons being then and there assembled.”

2. “To the common nuisance of all the good citizens of -the State then and there being assembled ” will not do.

3. It must be alleged that “ the acts were so repeated in public as to have become an annoyance and inconvenience to the public.”

4. It is necessary to set out the profane words in order that the Court may decide as to their quality.” Neither of -of the above allegations, i. e., 1, 3 and 4 are found in the bill in the case before us. All the precedents to which we have had access have them. No amount of evidence can .supply these defects. The authorities referred to will be .found cited in the three principal cases, viz: *State*v. Jones, *6489 Ire. 38; *State*v. Pepper, 68 N. C., 259; *State*v. *Powell,*70 N. C. 67. Let this be certified to the end that judgment, be arrested.

Error. Judgment arrested.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL EDWARD DURAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

D. GOREE, Jr., Appeals Coordinator at 

Corcoran State Prison, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-15275 

D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00181-ADA-HBK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Paul Edward Duran appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

alleging retaliation and due process violations arising from prison disciplinary 

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 24 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15275 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th 

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Duran’s action because Duran failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that Goree was involved in issuing any disciplinary 

violations, retaliated against Duran, or denied Duran disciplinary procedures he 

was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth 

minimum requirements of due process in disciplinary hearings); King v. County of 

Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff bringing 

a § 1983 action must show that a defendant was personally involved in or caused a

constitutional injury); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
IC 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1170 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a 

semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research, 

and for other purposes. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

S 1170 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Breast Cancer Re3 search Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CAN5 CER RESEARCH. 

6 Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

8 SEC. 3. ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED BY SPECIAL 

9 POSTAGE STAMP SALES ARE USED FOR 

10 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. 

11 Section 414(c)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is 

12 amended in the matter following subparagraph (B) by 

13 adding at the end the following: ‘‘An agency that receives 

14 amounts from the Postal Service under this paragraph 

15 shall use the amounts for breast cancer research.’’. 

Passed the Senate September 22, 2015. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SPECKCILkilla lumpaft

19 MAR 1961

atilmORANDUM POR isentary at Dame

Director, Cute:a teelligemee Amoy

SUBJECT: States at ilitraescret Becomaissauce *stem

Is reapcose to the Phi

 repent to yes far • repeat as takes $ Imre embed resew. et the 02BAIT ;fiat' ,

Ma

systems as relived Oro* his Special gee tor Mimi Pacer* Affairs, I sabolit the attached report

which has bees premed is cesjaoctios with Dr. liesville. The report

coetalas a imenary at the stable 01 those systems, with setbuted

ape:diesel dates, aad a dimension at Mime that has bees takes

toward isseriag Sell capebility at the garbs* date. Also isohded

a dismal= of additiood Mort that can provide as earlier hiterssediate capability.

Joseph V. Chaah

Under Secretary of the Air Force

res._ —L-or-...c--Paesi:

Cenral 16.11.5.X.eze.;

• 41

SPECIAL
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANK E. VOTH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DON MILLS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-35041

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00423-HA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Frank E. Voth, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations regarding his housing assignment and conditions of confinement. We

FILED

MAY 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-35041

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung,

391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against

Mills, the prison superintendent, because Voth failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether Mills personally participated in the alleged violations,

or knew of the alleged violations and failed to act. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

The district court properly determined that Voth’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief were moot because Voth was no longer housed in the prison where

the allegedly unconstitutional events occurred. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365,

1368 (9th Cir. 1995) (an inmate’s transfer from a prison while his claims are

pending will generally moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to that prison).

Voth’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2005031EN.01000102.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/1

---

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Chambers as from 12 October 2004

(2005/C 31/02)

At its meeting on 12 October 2004, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Fourth Chamber

Ms Colneric

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

Mr Schiemann

Mr Juhász

Mr Ilešič

Mr Levits

Fifth Chamber

Mr Gulmann

Mr Schintgen

Mr Makarczyk

Mr Kūris

Mr Arestis

Mr Klučka

Sixth Chamber

Mr La Pergola

Mr Puissochet

Mrs Macken

Mr von Bahr

Mr Malenovský

Mr Lõhmus

---