alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Amtsblatt C 182A/14.

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 182A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 57. Jahrgang14. Juni 2014 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 182A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

57. Jahrgang14. Juni 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Annullierung von Auswahlverfahren | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Annullierung von Auswahlverfahren

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Übersicht der im C A-Amtsblatt veröffentlichten auswahlverfahren | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Übersicht der im C A-Amtsblatt veröffentlichten auswahlverfahren

2

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 182/1

---

ANNULLIERUNG VON AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

2014/C 182 A/01

Die allgemeinen Auswahlverfahren

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — Korrektoren (AST 3) für die griechische Sprache (EL)

  und |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Korrektoren (AST 3) für die griechische Sprache (EL)

und

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — Korrektoren (AST 3) für die portugiesische Sprache (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Korrektoren (AST 3) für die portugiesische Sprache (PT),

deren Bekanntmachung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
   (1) veröffentlicht wurde, werden annulliert.

---

(1)  ABl. C 131 A vom 8.5.2013, S. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 182/2

---

ÜBERSICHT DER IM C A-AMTSBLATT VERÖFFENTLICHTEN AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

2014/C 182 A/02

Anbei finden Sie eine Liste der „C A“-Amtsblätter, die im Jahr 2014 bisher veröffentlicht wurden.

Die Amtsblätter sind — wenn nicht anders angegeben — in allen Sprachfassungen erschienen.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
#### George W. DAVIS, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; Motiva Company, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-41605 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 5, 2017

Stephen Paul Webb, Webb & Webb, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Robert J. Hambright, Esq., Orgain, Bell *&*Tucker, L.L.P., Beaumont, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George W. Davis, IV brought suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Motiva Enterprises, LLC and Motiva Company (collectively, “Motiva”), alleging that Motiva terminated his employment on the basis of his race. Motiva moved for summary judgment, arguing that Davis failed to establish a *prima facie*case of racial discrimination and that it terminated Davis for using his cell phone in a restricted area without a valid permit.

The district court granted summary judgment to Motiva, analyzing Davis’s claim under the familiar framework set forth in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The district court held that Davis failed to establish a *prima facie*case because he was “unable to identify a similarly situated, non-black employee who was not discharged in nearly identical circumstances.” The district court alternatively held that Motiva provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Davis’s termination—his use of a cell phone in a restricted area—and that Davis failed to establish that this reason was pretext for racial discrimination.

We AFFIRM for the reasons essentially given by the district court.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzo GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6177

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Alonzo Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. To-bin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*134Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Gardner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,506,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                397,557,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             445,608,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    156,051,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       209,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 180,331,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               445,608,000
<SALES>                                     95,893,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               86,770,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,742,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,952,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,790,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,790,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
BELL SPORTS CORP.
                          EXHIBIT - 11 - STATEMENT RE:
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (unaudited; In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Six Months Ended                  Three Months Ended

                                                            Dec. 27,       Dec. 28,          Dec. 27,          Dec. 28,
                                                              1997           1996              1997              1996
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                      <C>                <C>                <C>               <C>    
Net income (loss)                                             $ 959         $ (472)            $ 322             $ (475)


Net effect on net income (loss)
from conversion of other pontentially
dilutive securties                                            1,214          1,214               607                607

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

Adjusted net income (loss)                                  $ 2,173          $ 742             $ 929              $ 132
                                                         ===============================================================



Weighted average number of common
and common equivalent shares outstanding
- basic                                                      13,810         13,701            13,851             13,701

Net effect of other potentially dilutive
securities                                                    1,926          1,653             1,952              1,659
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------

Adjusted average shares outstanding for
fully diluted computation                                    15,736         15,354            15,803             15,360
                                                         ===============================================================

Per share amount - fully diluted                             $ 0.14         $ 0.05            $ 0.06             $ 0.01
                                                         ===============================================================
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Novastar Resources Ltd. (the
“ ***Company*** ”), for
the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “ ***Report*** ”), I,
Paul G. Carter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge
that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Paul
G. Carter
 __________________________________________
 Paul G.
Carter
 Chief
Executive Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 Dated:  October
14, 2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Novastar Resources Ltd. and will be retained by Novastar Resources Ltd. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Juan REYNEL-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73141

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

*246Jeffrey Charles Gonzales, Attorney, Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Portland, OR, for Petitioner

Juan Reynel-Salinas, Pro Se

Lisa Morinelli, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Reynel-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Rey-nel-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Reynel-Salinas’ contentions that the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, consider the totality of the circumstances, or consider relevant arguments and evidence are not supported by the record and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); *Martinez-Rosas,*424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Jaime MARRERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STEVENSON, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6546

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Jaime Marrero, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jaime Marrero seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C; § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)- (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*802We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marrero has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## NO. 12

- 24

- 00093

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

NATHANIEL JONES III , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUD IC IAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM O PINION PER CURIAM

T hi s appeal is being dismissed for failu re to comply wit h t h e Texas R ules of App ellate
Procedur e. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (c)

. Appellant, Nathaniel Jones, III , filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 22, 2024

. That same day , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the no tice of appeal fa iled to contain the
inf orma tion specifically r equire d by Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1 (e)

. 1 See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 ( requiring service on parties ) ; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25. 1 (e) ( service of
notice of appeal )

. The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before May 2 , t he appeal would be refer red to the Co urt for dismissal. This deadline passed and Appel lant has not filed a compliant notice of ap peal or otherwise responded to this Court ’ s notice

. 2

1 P ro se lit igants are held to the same stand ards as licensed att orneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; other wise, pro s e li tigants would benefit from an unf air advant a ge over parties repr ese nted by counsel

. Muhamm ed v. Plai n s Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 2665180 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Ty ler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.

2 I t appears that Appellan t filed an other notice of appeal , which likewise fail s to c omply with appellate R

ules 9.5 and 21.5(e)

.2 Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule s 9.5 and 25.1 ( e) , the appeal is
dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days ’ notice to all

par tie s, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because appellant
failed to comply with a requirement of thes e rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk

re quiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered May 31, 2024. Panel consi sted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

J UDGMENT

M AY 31, 2024

NO

. 12-24-00093- CV

NATH ANIEL JONES III , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

A ppeal from the 3rd District Court
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV21 -2390-3)

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the ap pellate re cord, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court th at the appeal should be dismissed.

It is t herefore ORDERED, ADJUDG ED a nd DE CREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is , he reby dismissed ; and that this decision b e certifie d to t he court
below for observance.

B y per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EX PARTE Alexius Rhamon FOSTER

1160347 (CR-15-0435)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of independent certified public accountants

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration  statements on Form S-1 (Nos.  333-36826 and 333-38538) and on Form
S-8  (No. 333-32678) of Nettaxi.com of our report dated March 8, 2001, appearing
on  page 3 of Nettaxi.com Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31,  2000.


/s/ BDO  Seidman,  LLP
BDO  SEIDMAN,  LLP
San  Jose,  California
April  3,  2001


<PAGE>
Willie Bernard COLLINS v. STATE

CR-16-0350

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
C.R.F., Father of K.R.-F., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rajat Rai, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Option Care, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by the report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Rajat  Rai           |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Rajat Rai                |
|                         |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----