alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016092EN.01000301.xml

| 9.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 92/04)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Latvia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Latvian agricultural industry

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The designs shows a Latvian brown cow which is one of the symbols of Latvian dairy farming both in folklore and in life. Underneath the design, at the left side there is the inscription of the year of issuance ‘2016’ and at the bottom of the inner circle the name of the issuing country ‘LATVIJA’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : June 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

p1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139495 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139495 

 COA: 292325 

Arenac CC: 08-003370-FC 

PATRICK EDWARD FENDER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

a1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152518

CRAFT RECREATION COMPANY, LLC,

d/b/a LAKEWOOD LANES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152518

COA: 321435

Oakland CC: 2013-136669-CB

HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2679 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to make clarifications with respect 

to amendments made by the Small Business Reorganization Act, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 9, 2021 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to make clarifications 

with respect to amendments made by the Small Business 

Reorganization Act, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Reor5 ganization Technical Corrections Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TITLE 11 AMENDMENTS. 

7 (a) DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS DEBTOR.— 

8 Section 101(51D)(B)(iii) of title 11, United States Code, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2679 IS

1 is amended by striking ‘‘an issuer’’ and all that follows 

2 and inserting ‘‘a corporation described in clause (ii).’’. 

3 (b) DEFINITION OF DEBTOR.—Section 1182(1)(B) 

4 of title 11, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘under this title’’ 

6 after ‘‘affiliated debtors’’; and 

7 (2) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘an issuer’’ and 

8 all that follows and inserting ‘‘a corporation de9 scribed in clause (ii).’’. 

10 (c) TRUSTEE.—Section 1183(b)(5) of title 11, United 

11 States Code, is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘possession, perform’’ and in13 serting ‘‘possession— 

14 ‘‘(A) perform’’; 

15 (2) in subparagraph (A), as so designated— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘, including operating the 

17 business of the debtor’’; and 

18 (B) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end; and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(B) be authorized to operate the business 

21 of the debtor;’’. 

22 (d) CONFIRMATION OF PLAN.—Section 1191(c) of 

23 title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking para24 graph (3) and inserting the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2679 IS

1 ‘‘(3)(A) The debtor will be able to make all pay2 ments under the plan; or 

3 ‘‘(B)(i) there is a reasonable likelihood that the 

4 debtor will be able to make all payments under the 

5 plan; and 

6 ‘‘(ii) the plan provides appropriate remedies, 

7 which may include the liquidation of nonexempt as8 sets, to protect the holders of claims or interests in 

9 the event that the payments are not made.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2015348EN.01000301.xml

| 21.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/3

---

Special Report No 11/2015

‘Are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?’

(2015/C 348/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2015 ‘Are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
#### Waldo vs. Rice and others.

An order refusing to dismiss a cause for want of prosecution, is not appealable.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for. *Milwaulcee*County.

This was an action by *L. F. Waldo*to redeem mortgaged premises from the lien of the mortgage. A motion of defendants to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of prosecution, was denied, and the defendants appealed.

*T. L. Ogden,*for appellants.

*Waldo & Ody,*for respondent.

*405*By the Oourt,*

Dixoisr, O. J.

The order is not appealable. It is an order refusing to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution. A very cursory examination of. the statute will show that it does not belong to any of the classes of orders from which appeals to this court are given. Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 10. It is not an order affecting a substantial right, and which, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. It is not a final order affecting a substantial right in special proceedings, or upon summary application in the action after judgment. It does not grant, refuse, continue, or modify a provisional remedy, &c. It does not involve the merits of the action, or any part thereof; nor order judgment upon the frivolousness of a demurrer, answer or reply. Nor can it be brought within the fifth subdivision of the section, which gives no new ground of appeal. It seems to us so obviously without any of these classes as almost to exclude comment. The only ground upon which the right of appeal can possibly be claimed, is that the the merits of the action or some part thereof are involved. In one sense this may be true. Every order which prevents an abatement or dismissal of the action may be said indirectly to involve the merits. It hastens the case to a trial upon the merits. But this is not the sense of the statute. It is only where the merits themselves are determined by the order, that an appeal is given. In this case the appeal comes up upon a mere preliminary question of practice, not involving the merits. It is, whether the cause shall proceed to a trial upon the merits. The court decided that it should, and from that order there is no appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Security Service Federal Credit Union,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Michelle Rodriguez,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00154-CV

Appeal from the

168thDistrict Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2018DCV3979)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until January 23, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John P. Mobbs, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before January 23, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

The Honorable Ben Grumbles, Secretary Maryland Department ofthe Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Grumbles: 

### NOV 18ZO\S

Thank you for your letter dated October 20, 2015, in which you requested withdrawal of certainportions ofthe July 22, 2013 Maryland Department ofthe Environment (MDE) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittal, (SIP# 13-07), Baltimore Serious Nonattainment Area 0.08 ppm 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan, the "Serious Area Plan" for the Baltimore nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the "Baltimore Area." Your October 20, 2015letterwithdrew portions oftheJuly 22, 2013 submittal pertaining to the attainment demonstration, including modeling and weight of evidence, contingency measures for attainment, and the reasonably available control measure (RACM) analysis. That portion ofthe Serious Area Plan is no longer pending before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is preparing a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking to address the remaining portion ofthe Serious Area Plan.

On May 26, 2015 (80 FR29970), EPA determined that the Baltimore Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on monitored ambient air quality data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Under the provisions ofEPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), EPA's determinationthat an area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS suspends the area's obligations to submit certain planning requirements related to attainment ofthat standard, including an attainment demonstration and contingency measures, for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. Therefore, the statutory requirement for the portion ofthe 2013 Ozone SIP that MDE withdrewhas been suspended.

Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staffcontact Ms. Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director ofEPARegion III's Office ofAir Program Planning,
at 215-814-2178.

## Sfficerely**~#**

# mold, Acting Director Air Protection Division

I

cc: George (Tad) S. Abum, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration

Printedon 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100%post-consumer fiber andprocess chlorine free. CustomerServiceHotline: 1-800-438-2474
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Metris Companies, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.:
333-42529, 333-42961, 333-52627, 333-52629, 333-78345, 333-36924, 333-51390,
333-91917, and 333-60870 on Form S-8 333-60973, 333-47066, 333-82007 on Form
S-3; and 333-43771 and 333-86695 on Form S-4; and 333-88178 on Form S-8 of
Metris Companies Inc. of our report dated April 9, 2004 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Metris Companies Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December
31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Metris Companies Inc.

Our report refers to a change in accounting method for derivative financial
instruments in 2001.

Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 29, 2004
# C_2016038EN.01000201.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/2

---

Appointment of the Registrar

(2016/C 038/02)

At its general meeting on 27 October 2015, the Court decided to reappoint Mr Alfredo Calot Escobar as Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from 7 October 2016 to 6 October 2022.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 20

- 00137

- CV

IN RE Martin MARES , Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 11, 2020

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 4, 2020, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency

stay pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. On March 6, 2020, relator filed

an amended petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the amended petition and the record,

this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the amended petition

for writ of mandamus is denied. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for emergency stay

is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019

- CI

- 18694, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Maria Christina
Luna Mares and Martin Mares, Jr. and In the I nterest of K.I.M., A.N.M., and R.J.M., Minor Children , pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kimberly R. Guillen v. AMG Cityview Apartments LLC

Appellate case number: 01-22-00363-CV

Trial court case number: 1179435

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On August 8, 2022, appellant, Kimberly R. Guillen, filed an agreed motion to abate this 

appeal to November 9, 2022, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties. We deny

the motion to abate. Appellant may seek an extension of time to file her brief, currently due August 

8, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b). The Court would also consider a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. See id. 42.1(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sherry Radack________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___August 16, 2022_______
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2712 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2712

      To authorize appropriations for planning for United States 
         participation in the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              August 11 (legislative day, August 10), 2021

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To authorize appropriations for planning for United States 
         participation in the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PLANNING FOR UNITED 
              STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE 2025 WORLD EXPO.

    Notwithstanding section 204 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 
(22 U.S.C. 2452b), there is authorized to be appropriated for planning 
for United States participation in the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan, 
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2022.
                                 <all>
```
EDWARD WEBB,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW, et al.,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1804

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Edward Webb, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana M. Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel,

Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2016079EN.01000801.xml

| 1.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/8

---

Special Report No 2/2016

‘2014 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports’

(2016/C 79/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 2/2016 ‘2014 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**SEAN P. MORIARTY,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; PENNSYLVANIA**  **DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 155 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Notice** 

**of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of earnings found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         119,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,816
<PP&E>                                         133,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,256,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           375
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,242,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,256,695
<SALES>                                      1,754,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,839,483
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,301,899
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                504,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                   137,688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            366,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   366,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40516 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MALONE BURNS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-135-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Malone Burns appeals the 188-month sentence imposed for his conviction f o r p ossession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C

. § 841(a)(1). In his sole issue on appeal, he contends that the district court erred by refusing to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) to his sentence. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Tickles , 661 F.3d 212, 215 (5th Cir. 2011), petitions for cert. filed (Dec. 15, 2011) (No. 11-8 0 2 3) and (Dec. 27, 2011) (No. 11

- 8 2 6 8) , w hich held that the FSA does not apply U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40516 Document: 00511823818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012No. 11-40516

retroactively to defendants whose sentencing occurred after the FSA’s effective date but whose offenses occurred before th e effective date. Although the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in two Seventh Circuit cases that held that the FSA does not apply retroactively, o u r precedent is nevertheless binding. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 808 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-40516 Document: 00511823818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012