alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002E0211 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002E0211

**Council Joint Action of 11 March 2002 on the appointment of the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina **

*
Official Journal L 070 , 13/03/2002 P. 0007 - 0007 *

Council Joint Action

of 11 March 2002

on the appointment of the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina

(2002/211/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 14 and Article 18(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 18 February 2002, the Council expressed its willingness to appoint as the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina the next High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In doing so, the EU conveyed a clear message that the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina lies in integration into European structures, building on stabilisation and association process.

(2) On 28 February 2002 the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board took note of the EU's intention to appoint the next High Representative as the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

(3) On 11 March 2002, the Council adopted Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission(1), Article 6 of which states that the Council should appoint an EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

Lord Ashdown is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Article 2

1. The role of the EUSR shall not in any way prejudge the mandate of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including his coordinating role with regard to the activities of all civilian organisations and agencies as set out in the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement and subsequent Peace Implementation Council conclusions and declarations.

2. He shall maintain an overview of the whole range of activities in the field of the Rule of Law and in that context provide advice to the Secretary-General/High Representative (SG/HR) and the Commission as necessary.

3. As part of his wider responsibilities, the EUSR shall have authority to give direction, as necessary, to the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EU Police Mission.

Article 3

The EUSR shall report to the Council through the SG/HR.

Article 4

This Joint Action shall enter into force on 3 June 2002.

Article 5

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 11 March 2002.

For the Council

The President

J. Piqué i Camps

(1) See page 1 of this Official Journal.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 8, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00595

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.H., A.M.G., AND A.J.G., CHILDREN

From the 63rd Judicial District Court

, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24205

Honorable Enrique Fernandez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Melinda Walker ’ s Notification of Late Reporter ’ s Record is hereby NOTED. The Court

Reporter ’ s Record is due January 15, 2021.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 8th day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MARTINEZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50175

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Charlotte E. Kaiser, Steven Lee,'Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Grant Eddy, Attorney, Law Office of Grant L. Eddy, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Martinez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United *850States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentenc-ing.

Martinez-Diaz contends that the district court erred by basing the sentence on an incorrect characterization of his criminal history. The record reflects that, while Martinez-Diaz had prior drug arrests, he did not sustain a drug conviction in 2006 or at any other time. However, the district court referred to a 2006 drug conviction, and Martinez-Diaz’s history of “drug trafficking,” in the course of explaining why a downward variance was .not warranted. Because there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence had it not mistakenly believed that Martinez-Diaz had prior drug convictions, we vacate and remand for re-sentencing. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (selection of sentence based on clearly erroneous facts constitutes procedural error).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Lisha AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Samuel I. White, P.C.; U. S. Bank National Association, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1460

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Lisha Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Lee Murphy, KAUFMAN & CAÑOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*792PER CURIAM:

Lisha Austin appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Austin’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Austin has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6442 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief 

Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2016 

Mr. FORTENBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, 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. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC 

4 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

5 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6442 IH

1 ‘‘(46) CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HIS2 TORIC TRAIL.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Chief Standing 

4 Bear Trail, extending approximately 550 miles 

5 from Niobrara, Nebraska, to Ponca City, Okla6 homa, which follows the route taken by Chief 

7 Standing Bear and the Ponca people during 

8 Federal Indian removal, and approximately 550 

9 miles from Ponca City, Oklahoma, through 

10 Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, Nebraska, 

11 which follows the return route taken by Chief 

12 Standing Bear and the Ponca people, as gen13 erally depicted on the map entitled ‘Chief 

14 Standing Bear National Historic Trail Feasi15 bility Study’, numbered 903/125,630, and dated 

16 November 2014. 

17 ‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map 

18 described in subparagraph (A) shall be on file 

19 and available for public inspection in the appro20 priate offices of the Department of the Interior. 

21 ‘‘(C) COMPONENTS.—The feasibility study 

22 conducted under subparagraph (A) shall include 

23 a determination on whether the Chief Standing 

24 Bear Trail meets the criteria described in subVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Dec 07, 2016 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6442.IH H6442

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6442 IH

1 section (b) for designation as a national historic 

2 trail. 

3 ‘‘(D) CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting 

4 the feasibility study under subparagraph (A), 

5 the Secretary of the Interior shall consider 

6 input from owners of private land within or ad7 jacent to the study area and shall not consider 

8 acquiring any land or interest in land outside 

9 the exterior boundaries of any federally admin10 istered area. 

11 ‘‘(E) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the 

12 feasibility study under subparagraph (A), the 

13 Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the 

14 Nebraska Natural Resources Districts.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
SECURIITES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION  Washington, D.C.
20549  Form 10-KSB/A  Annual Report Pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  For the fiscal year
ended: December 31, 2007  Commission File No.
 333-138332  TRILLIANT EXPLORATION
CORP. (Exact name of
registrant as specified in its charter)  Nevada
20-0936313(State or other
jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)  2300 West Sahara
Avenue Suite 800 Las Vegas, NV 89102 (Address of principal
executive offices)  Issuers telephone
number: (702) 664-0078   Securities registered
under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:   Securities registered
under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:   Check whether the issuer (1) filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.  [X] Yes  [  ] No  Check if there is no disclosure of
delinquent filers in response to Item 405 or Regulation S-B contained in this
form, and no disclosure will be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by
reference in Part III of this Form 10-KSB or any amendment to this Form 10-KSB
 [  ]  Indicate by
checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act).  [X] Yes     [  ] No  State
issuers revenues for its most recent fiscal year: $0.00  State the aggregate market value of
the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by
reference to the price at which the common equity was sold, or the average bid
and asked price of such common equity, as of a specified date within the past 60
days.  $0.00  State the number of shares
outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common equity, as of the latest
practicable date.  As of March 16, 2008, the issuer had 58,720,000 shares
of common stock issued and outstanding.  DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE No documents are incorporated herein
by reference.  Transitional Small Business Issuer
Format   Yes  [  ]    No  [X]      Explanatory
Note  The
Company is filing this Amended Annual Report on Form 10KSB solely for the
purpose of filing the Auditors Report which was inadvertently omitted from the
report filed March 28, 2008, SEC File No. 333-138332.       Signatures  In accordance with Section 13 or
15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  TRILLIANT EXPLORATION, INC.    /s/ Darryl
Mills Darryl Mills President, Director   In accordance with the Exchange Act,
this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.   /s/
Darryl Mills Darryl
Mills President Director
Anoka Air v MAC

Reply - Exhibits 1 thru 4

CD containing Audio files are located in the office FAA Docket @ 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC
#### Max Everhardus DE FRETES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70710

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

*881OIL, Julie M. Iversen, Trial Attorney, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *881*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Max Everhardus De Fretes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying De Fretes’ motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where De Fretes failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 15.1


The Board of Directors
PowerCerv Corporation


We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No.333-3960) of PowerCerv Corporation for the registration of
3,675,000 shares of its common stock of our report dated July 17, 1998 relating
to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of
PowerCerv Corporation that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 1998.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our reports are not a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within
the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                           -----------------------------------
                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Tampa, Florida
August 12, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6036 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6036

 To extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of Federal sex 
                               offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2016

 Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself and Mr. Cohen) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of Federal sex 
                               offenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Extending Justice for Sex Crime 
Victims Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL REMEDY FOR 
              PERSONAL INJURIES.

    Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 1595(c)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                striking ``the later of''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ``after the cause 
                of action arose; or'' and inserting the following: 
                ``after the date upon which the plaintiff discovers the 
                later of--
                    ``(A) the violation that forms the basis for the 
                claim; or
                    ``(B) the injury that forms the basis for the 
                claim; or''; and
            (2) in section 2255(b), by striking ``filed within 10 
        years'' and all that follows through the end and inserting the 
        following: ``filed--
            ``(1) not later than 10 years after the date upon which the 
        plaintiff discovers the later of--
                    ``(A) the violation that forms the basis for the 
                claim; or
                    ``(B) the injury that forms the basis for the 
                claim; or
            ``(2) in the case of a person under a legal disability, not 
        later than 10 years after the disability ends.''.
                                 <all>
```
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7032 

AN ACT 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide the Congressional Budget 

Office with necessary authorities to expedite the sharing 

of data from executive branch agencies, 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, 
2 

•HR 7032 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Budget 

3 Office Data Sharing Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUESTS BY CBO OF INFORMATION FROM EXECU5 TIVE AGENCIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 201(d) of the Congres7 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 

8 U.S.C. 601(d)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘The Director is authorized’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘(1) The Director is authorized’’; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘(other than material the disclo12 sure of which would be a violation of law)’’ and in13 serting ‘‘(with or without written agreement) pro14 vided that the Director maintains the level of con15 fidentiality required by law of the department, agen16 cy, establishment, or regulatory agency or commis17 sion from which it is obtained in accordance with 

18 section 203(e)’’; and 

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

20 ‘‘(2) No provision of law enacted after the date of 

21 the enactment of the Congressional Budget Office Data 

22 Sharing Act shall be construed to supersede, limit, or oth23 erwise modify the authority of the Director to obtain any 

24 material under this subsection unless such provision spe25 cifically provides, by specific reference to this paragraph, 
3 

•HR 7032 EH

1 that such authority is to be superseded, limited, or other2 wise modified.’’. 

3 (b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date 

4 of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congres5 sional Budget Office shall submit, to the chairs of the 

6 Committees on the Budget of the House of Representa7 tives and the Senate, a report listing any request for infor8 mation pursuant to a written agreement under section 

9 201(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 

10 Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601(d)), as amended by 

11 subsection (a) of this Act, made to any department, agen12 cy, or establishment of the executive branch of Govern13 ment or any regulatory agency or commission of the Gov14 ernment and any challenges faced accessing information 

15 under such section. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7032 

AN ACT 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundtive branch agencies, and for other purposes. ties to expedite the sharing of data from execu- gressional Budget Office with necessary authori- ment Control Act of 1974 to provide the Con-
DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP  Chartered Accountants                 A Partnership of Incorporated Professional   Exhibit 15.1          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 20-F of Horizon Industries Ltd. of our report dated May 30, 2007 appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference of us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.       /s/ DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP  Vancouver, CanadaChartered AccountantsFebruary 12, 2008
            1200  609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10372, Pacific Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1G6 Telephone (604) 687-0947  Fax (604) 687-6172
#### Jess R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. GRONSETH, CBCC Law Librarian; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35156

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Jess R. Smith, Pro Se

Marko Luka Pavela, State Attorney General’s Office — Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

*869Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Jess R. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion, *Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles,*834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because Smith failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. *See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,*555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth standards for issuance of preliminary injunction); *Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust,*636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted unless “extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injuiy requirement).

The district court properly determined that Smith’s allegations regarding the denial of access to legal supplies and to his legal materials are outside the scope of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,