alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016105EN.01000502.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7953 — AXA/Group CM-11/Target)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 105/03)

On 15 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7953. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7953. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________) In the Matter of ) ) Establishment of Slot Exemption Proceedings ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0029 At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ) Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718 ) __________________________________________)

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT AND PROPOSED FLIGHT SCHEDULE

Megan Lawrence, Esq. Managing Director, Government and Community Relations Megan.Lawrence@alaskaair.com Kyle Levine, Esq. Deputy General Counsel and Managing Director, Legal Kyle.Levine@alaskaair.com ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. 19300 Pacific Highway South Seattle, WA 98188 Marshall S. Sinick, Esq. Marshall.Sinick@squiresanders.com Edward W. Sauer, Esq. Edward.Sauer@squiresanders.com Squire Sanders (US) LLP 1200 19 th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 626-6651 Counsel for Alaska Airlines, Inc.

DATED: May 24, 2012BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________) In the Matter of ) ) Establishment of Slot Exemption Proceedings ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0029 At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ) Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718 ) __________________________________________)

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT AND PROPOSED FLIGHT SCHEDULE
In accordance with the requirements of Order 2012-5-12, 1 Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”) hereby provides notice of its intention to begin daily nonstop scheduled service between Portland, Oregon, and Reagan Washington National Airport on or about August 28, 2012. Flights will operate as follows: PDX-DCA Arrival: 1700 Slot Hour DCA-PDX Departure: 1700 Slot Hour In operating this service, Alaska will use single-aisle Stage 3 compliant B737-800 aircraft.

1 Order Granting Beyond-Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Docket DOTOST-2012-0029, May 14, 2012Respectfully submitted,

________________________________ Marshall S. Sinick, Esq. Marshall.Sinick@squiresanders.com Edward W. Sauer, Esq. Edward.Sauer@squiresanders.com Squire Sanders (US) LLP 1200 19 th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 626-6651
DATED: May 24, 2012CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Notice of Alaska Airlines, Inc. has this day been served on each of the following individuals via telecopier or email. susan.kurland@dot.gov ; todd.homan@dot.gov ; james.dann@dot.gov; grady.stone@dot.gov; brian.ctr.meehan@faa.gov john.allen@faa.gov dan.weiss@coair.com ; steve.morrissey@united.com ; jonathan.linde@united.com rbkeiner@crowell.com carl.nelson@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com ; jeff.morgan@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com ; robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com ; dkirstein@yklaw.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com ; leslie.abbott@wnco.com john.varley@virginamerica.com howard.kass@usairways.com ; benjamin.slocum@usairways.com john.fredericksen@suncountry.com agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com rick.finn@portofportland.com hbrown@san.org Michael.Daum@cantwell.senate.gov Alexandra.Hackbarth@wyden.senate.gov James.Feldman@begich.senate.gov

______________________________ Marshall S. Sinick DATED: May 24, 2012
#### Packard vs. The Town of Bovina.

*Liability of town*— Demand.

A town is not liable on an order drawn against its treasurer, until after demand and refusal of payment.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Outagamie*County.

Action on town orders. The issue was as to demand and refusal of payment. A witness for the plaintiff testified that, on, etc., she went to the residence of the town treasurer, and presented the orders for payment to a son of the latter, fifteen or sixteen years old, who said that he had no money to pay on the orders, and that his father was at Chicago, and when he got back, he (the son) would tell him of it. “He (the boy) was in the barn when I got there. I presented the order to him in front of the house.” Judgment of nonsuit, etc.; and plaintiff appealed.

*Anson*Ballard, for appellant,

contended that the averment of demand, etc., did not need to be proven. Edwards on Bills, 680; Story on Prom. Notes (5th ed.), 207; R. S. ch. 15, §§ 79-85, and ch. 18, §§ 72, 73. The town can suffer no loss for want of presentment or notice; for, by alleging or proving that the treasurer was ready to pay at the time the action was brought, defendant would be discharged from interest and costs. This is the utmost relief or mitigation to which it could be entitled without taking issue on the question of indebtedness. Story on Prom. Notes, § 29; Edwards on Bills, 480; *Haxtun v. Bishop,*3 Wend. 21; *Kelley n. Mayor, etc.,*4 Hill, 623. 2. There was sufficient evidence of presentment and demand to sustain a verdict; and the question should have been left to the jury.

*Geo. II. Myers,*for respondent.

*383Paihe, J.

The judgment in this case must be affirmed. A town is not liable on an order drawn on its treasurer, until the order has been presented for payment,- and payment refused. It is like a bill of exchange or check. There is no default until the drawee has refused payment.

A demand being necessary, it would scarcely be insisted that a demand upon the treasurer’s boy, fourteen or fifteen years old, at the barn, and in the absence of the treasurer, was any demand upon him.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 24.5**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and to sign any or allamendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with orwithout the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and everyact and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, asfully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or theirsubstitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/  J. McDONALD WILLIAMS |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | J.  McDonald Williams     |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISTA DANDRIDGE-BARNETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BARNES AND NOBLE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55994

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02254-JLS-KK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Krista Dandridge-Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing for failure to prosecute her action alleging federal and state law claims

arising from an incident at a Barnes and Nobles store. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Edwards v. Marin Park, 

 

* 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

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-55994 

Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Because the records shows that Dandridge-Barnett stood on her complaint, 

the district court abused its discretion in converting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s claims into a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) sanction. See 

id. at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff 

makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).

Nevertheless, dismissal of Dandridge-Barnett’s federal claims was proper

because Dandridge-Barnett failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible 

claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Lindsey v. SLT 

Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144-45 (2005) (setting forth elements of a 

§ 1981 racial discrimination claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 

1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim); 

Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a cause of action is not 

provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 absent a valid claim for relief under § 1985).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Dandridge-Barnett’s state law claims after 
3 15-55994 

dismissing her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); San Pedro Hotel Co., 

Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).

 AFFIRMED.
# C_2016049EN.01000101.xml

| 9.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7686 — Avago/Broadcom)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 49/01)

On 23 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7686. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7686. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

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

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   515,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (515,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.02


</TABLE>
# C_2015210EN.01000201.xml

| 26.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7598 — Dr. Oetker/Coppenrath & Wiese)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 210/03)

On 17 June 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7598. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7598. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015364EN.01000301.xml

| 4.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 November 2015

(2015/C 364/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0976 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4587 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71315 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3935 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0869 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3410 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,100 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2540 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4345 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1222 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5301 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4406 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5065 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6364 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5363 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 245,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2542 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9545 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5860 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 936,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7104 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,495 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,5445 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,048 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1813 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1848 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,1429 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0976

JPY

Japanese yen

132,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4587

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71315

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3935

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0869

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3410

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,100

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2540

RON

Romanian leu

4,4345

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1222

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5301

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4406

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5065

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6364

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5363

KRW

South Korean won

1 245,49

ZAR

South African rand

15,2542

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9545

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5860

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 936,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7104

PHP

Philippine peso

51,495

RUB

Russian rouble

69,5445

THB

Thai baht

39,048

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1813

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1848

INR

Indian rupee

72,1429

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2016

No. 04-16-00752-CR

Anfaney Edward HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR6889A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a $1,500.00

fine in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On November 8, 2016, the trial 

court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant filed 

a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this 

court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission 

to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes 

the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written 

motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its 

permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately 

reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must 

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). 
This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), 

unless an amended trial court certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made 

part of the appellate record by January 4, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. 

State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
## The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

NATHAN P. WILSON 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104-3741 ASSISTANT CLERK TELEPHONE 334-229-0733 July 12, 2024 CL-2023-0846 J.N. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court: JU-22-539.02).

ORDER You are hereby notified that the following action was taken in the above cause by the Court of Civil Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled. No opinion written on rehearing. Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Nathan P. Wilson, Clerk
MEMO 

2 

3 

A 

REMARKS 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

NOTE AND 

RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted and Order filed January 24, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00062

- CV

IN RE CLIFFORD HALL

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 310 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 200 3

- 20180



### O R D E R This Court has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus of relator, Clifford
Hall.
The Court is of the opinion that relator’s petition requires further consideration.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(b)(3). We therefore order the Clerk of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, returnab le on February 26 , 2014, pending final determination of the relief requested in the petition. We further order that relator be discharged upon execution and filing of a bond as set forth below. See id.

The relator wi ll be admitted to bail upon his giving a good and sufficient bond, sign ed by relator as p rincipal and his attorney, Tyesha Y. Elam, as surety, conditioned asrequired by law, or by any other surety acceptable to the Sheriff of Harris County, or cash

in lieu of bond, in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars , pending the hearing on the return
date of this writ, and until otherwise ordered by this Court.
A response to the petition is hereby requested to be filed on or before February 3,
2014. The cause is set for submission without oral argument on February 26 , 2014.

PER CURIAM

Order filed January 24, 2014

. Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.