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

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 182A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 57. årgang14. juni 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 182A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

57. årgang14. juni 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Øvrige meddelelser |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER |
| | De Europæiske Fællesskabers Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Annullering | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

V   Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

De Europæiske Fællesskabers Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Annullering

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Oversigt over udvælgelsesprøver i EU-Tidende, C ... A-udgaven | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Oversigt over udvælgelsesprøver i EU-Tidende, C ... A-udgaven

2

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

V Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

De Europæiske Fællesskabers Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 182/1

---

ANNULLERING

2014/C 182 A/01

Følgende udvælgelsesprøver, som blev offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
   (1), annulleres:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — Græsksprogede (EL) korrekturlæsere (AST 3)

  og |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Græsksprogede (EL) korrekturlæsere (AST 3)

og

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — Portugisisksprogede (PT) korrekturlæsere (AST 3). |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Portugisisksprogede (PT) korrekturlæsere (AST 3).

---

(1)  EUT C 131 A af 8.5.2013, s. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 182/2

---

OVERSIGT OVER UDVÆLGELSESPRØVER I EU-TIDENDE, C ... A-UDGAVEN

2014/C 182 A/02

Nedenstående liste viser, hvilke udvælgelsesprøver der er offentliggjort i indeværende år.

Medmindre andet er angivet, er de pågældende EU-Tidender udkommet på alle sprog.

| 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

---
Daniel Jesus MARTIN v. STATE

CR-16-0681

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and remanded.
Haywood EDOUARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2926

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         174,390
<SECURITIES>                                   326,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,687)
<INVENTORY>                                     29,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               673,804
<PP&E>                                          25,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,658)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,555,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,076
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,081,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,555,094
<SALES>                                        202,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,248
<CGS>                                          156,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  336,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (7,913)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (130,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (130,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (130,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.06)


</TABLE>
Barry Van WHITTON v. STATE

CR-15-0333

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; DSR Member Conflict and R13 Panel.
    Date: March 2, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Aiwu Cheng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02436b75772c616a676c65426c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d7c544a48135e5558535a7d535455135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; T32 and T90/R90 Review Meeting.
    Date: March 4, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892-9550, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640e0b17014a16110d1e240a0d0c4a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18b8e9284cf9394889ba18f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01806 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX PARTE Darrell WIMBERLY

1160328 (CR-15-1228)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00001-CV

RESPONSIVE EDUCATION SOLUTIONS,

Appellant

V.

SUSAN KIRSCHNER, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.K., A 

MINOR CHILD, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 393rd District 

Court

of Denton County (20-3422-393)

April 22, 2021

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s order. We reverse that part of the trial court’s 

order that denies RES’s plea to the jurisdiction on A.K.’s § 1983 claim, and we render

judgment dismissing the lawsuit for want of jurisdiction. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
PART II -
OTHER INFORMATION





Exhibit
32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter
Ended April 5, 2009 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:





1.
            The
      Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Pomeroy IT
      Solutions, Inc.





May 18,
2009




/s/ Christopher C. FromanChristopher
      C. FromanChief
      Executive Officer and
President





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EX PARTE Robert TERRY

CR-16-0646

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Etowah Cir. Ct.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-440-CV

IN RE CHRISTOPHER A. FAULKNER,	RELATOR

CREATIVE INNOVATIONS, INC., CI

HOST, INC., AND CAROLE FAULKNER

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and real party'Ss in interest brief and  is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

[DELIVERED JAFFEBRUARY 6, 2003]
Enrique BRISENO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK N.A., etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Following review of appellee's response to this Court's order to show cause, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SUAREZ, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
JOHNNY WELCH

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 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

C ASE NO. 1D 15

- 4130

Opinion filed October 2, 2015

.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Johnny Welch, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Rodney Carter,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Christopher &Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q****for the period ended May 30, 2009 as filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: July 9, 2009 |     |
|-------------------------|----------|
|                    |     |
|                    | By:      | /s/ Rodney Carter |
|                    | * * | Rodney Carter |
|                    |     | *Executive Vice President,* |
|                    | * * | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Request for Information

Keith Barnett 

to:

leslie.white

10/23/2009 11:57 AM

Cc:

gina.henry, satish.sheth

Show Details

Dear Ms. White:

I have two items I need to bring to your attention.

1. I have been trying to get clarification on an issue related to the 

section 114 request sent to your company on May 8, 2007. (I have attached 

a copy of the cover letter to that request for your connivence). In 

responding to this request, you provided information on the following 

plants: Brooksville; Fairborne; Lyons; Wampum; and Knoxville. In your 

response you indicated that the other Cemex facilities were separately 

incorporated. I called Regina Henry several months ago and asked for 

clarification of how many separate corporate entities Cemex had in the 

U.S. and which plants were in each of these entities. I also made the 

same request to Satish Sheth in late September. I still have no response 

to this question.

2. I have obtained a copy of an emissions test performed at the Cemex 

plant in New Braunfels, Texas in May 2005 where you tested Selective 

Non-Catlytic Reduction for control of NOx emissions. In order to use 

these data in our ongoing review of the Portland Cement NSPS, I need to 

request a copy directly from your company in a non-confidential form. 

This issue was also discussed with Satish Sheth in late September.

Unfortunately, the information outlined above is important to our ongoing 

rulemakings for Portland cement, both of which have court ordered 

deadlines. If I don't receive a response by the end of next week, I will 

have no other choice but to send a formal information collection request 

under the authority of section 114.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
Marco M. TORRES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Patrick HOOD, Esq., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0962

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This proceeding is dismissed because of the petitioner's failure to satisfy this court's March 14, 2018, fee order.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Re:	Petition	for	Amendment	to	Add	Aircraft	to	Exemption	No.	#	12315	Issued	to	

AirFrame	LLC	(Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1710

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:

AirFrame	LLC	was	granted	exemption	(Exemption	No.	12315,	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-

1710)	to	use	UAS	for	aerial	data	collection	using	the	DJI	S800	and	Tarot	680Pro.		

AirFrame	LLC	requests	for	an	amendment	to	that	exemption	to	add	the	Iris	+	and	

X8+	and	X8-M,	all products	of	3DRobotics.		AirFrame	LLC	agrees	to	operate	these	

aircraft	under	the	same	restrictions	in	the	exemption.

These aircraft	have	been	previously	granted	in	other	exemptions	and	would	not	set	

any	precedent.		All	proposed	aircraft	are	of	smaller	size	and	weight	as	the	DJI	S800	

and	would	utilize	the	identical	flight	and	ground	station	components	used	in	the	

original	exemption.

Sincerely,

Nathan	Richards
#### Randall Scott JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-50032

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 29, 2017

Randall Scott Jordan, Pro Se

Casey Leigh Jackson Solomon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Randall Jordan, Texas prisoner #1672271, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from the denial of a motion *204under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. No COA is required, however, because Jordan seeks to challenge only the district court’s ruling that he failed to file a timely notice of appeal after the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007); *Dunn v. Cockrell,*302 F.3d 491, 492 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).

The denial of the Rule 60 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi,*635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981). Jordan asserts that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of the notice of appeal because this court never authorized it to correct a clerical mistake under Rule 60(a). Aside from Rule 60(a)’s having no applicability under the circumstances, jurisdiction was never conferred on this court, so the district court was never deprived of jurisdiction, because we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on account of the absence of a timely notice of appeal. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a § 2254 case); *Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,*459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (noting the general jurisdictional effects of a timely notice of appeal).

More significantly, our dismissal of No. 16-50019 for lack of a timely notice of appeal is the law of the case. *See Fuhrman v. Dretke,*442 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2006). In addition, a Rule 60 motion may not be used to circumvent the time limits for appealing, especially where the motion was made after the time for seeking an extension of time for appeal has expired. *See Dunn,*302 F.3d at 492-93; *see also Perez v. Stephens,*745 F.3d 174, 177-79 (5th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, the motion for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary. The order denying Rule 60 relief is AFFIRMED.

*

 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, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Thomas Carlisle HINRICHS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 17-6162

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Thomas Carlisle Hinrichs, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels, FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, But-ner, North Carolina, Robert J. Dodson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Carlisle Hinrichs has noted an appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate to the extent it sought vacatur under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) of its October 3, 2013 order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2012) and requested a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2012) to determine whether he should be discharged from such custody.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The portion of the district court’s order denying Hinrichs’ motion insofar as it sought a § 4247(h) hearing is neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of this portion of the district court’s order for lack of jurisdiction.

With respect to the portion of the court’s order denying Hinrichs’ request for Rule-60(b)(4) relief, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not reversibly err because none of the criteria for granting such relief was met in this case. *See Wendt v. Leonard,*431 F.3d 410, 412-13 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order. *United States v. Hinrichs,*No. 5:13-hc-02172-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *153the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*