alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 301/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.301.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 301 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 555 October 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.301.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 301

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 555 October 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 301/01 | State aid — France — State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Marseille-Corsica sea routes operated by SNCM and CMN — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 301/02 | State aid — Austria — State aid No SA.15836 (2012/C) (ex NN 34/2000 and NN 34A/2000) — AMA marketing measures — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 22 |
| 2012/C 301/03 | State aid — Italian Republic — State aid No SA.33412 (2012/C) (ex 2011/N) — Prolongation of the aid scheme for the development of logistics chains and the upgrading of intermodality (Ecobonus) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 49 |
| 2012/C 301/04 | State aid — Greece — State aid No SA.28876 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Container Terminal Port of Piraeus & Cosco Pacific Limited — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 55 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 301/01

State aid — France — State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Marseille-Corsica sea routes operated by SNCM and CMN — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

1

2012/C 301/02

State aid — Austria — State aid No SA.15836 (2012/C) (ex NN 34/2000 and NN 34A/2000) — AMA marketing measures — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

22

2012/C 301/03

State aid — Italian Republic — State aid No SA.33412 (2012/C) (ex 2011/N) — Prolongation of the aid scheme for the development of logistics chains and the upgrading of intermodality (Ecobonus) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

49

2012/C 301/04

State aid — Greece — State aid No SA.28876 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Container Terminal Port of Piraeus & Cosco Pacific Limited — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

55

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32

   CERTIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
     PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Juniper Growth
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, the undersigned officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  October 15, 2007                  /s/ Joseph R. Rozelle
                                         --------------------------
                                         JOSEPH R. ROZELLE
                                         Principal Executive Officer
                                         and Principal Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the
Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference
into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **6015**

JOSEPH A. DANIELS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PAUL E. CALDWELL, Medical Doctor, St. Mary’s Hospital, Richmond, Virginia , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3 :1 1

- cv
- 0 0461

- REP )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joseph A. Daniels , Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph A. Daniels appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (20 12 ). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordi ngly, we deny Daniels’ motions to
appoint counsel, for a jury trial, and for a physical
examination, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Daniels v. Caldwell , No. 3:11

- cv
- 00461

- REP (E.D. Va.
Dec. 18, 2013) . We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 94 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 94

     To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the 
              consideration of retroactive tax increases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Coverdell (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Kempthorne, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Warner), introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of 
   August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental 
  Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other 
         committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the 
              consideration of retroactive tax increases.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.

    (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``prohibition on the consideration of retroactive tax increases

    ``Sec. 314. (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House 
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, that increases a 
tax and applies such increase to taxable years beginning before the 
date of the enactment of the law.
    ``(b) Increases a tax.--The term `increases a tax' shall include a 
change in any rate of tax, deduction, exemption, credit, exclusion, or 
similar change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that will result in 
an obligation to pay a larger tax.''.
    (b) Supermajority Point of Order.--Subsections (c) and (d) of 
section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are amended by 
inserting ``314,'' after ``313,''.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 65

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the the United States to

protect the rights of crime victims.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. EXON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to protect the rights of crime victims.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid for all in6 tents and purposes as part of the Constitution when rati7 fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years from the date of its submission

9 by the Congress:
2

SJ 65 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE.—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Victims of crimes of violence and other

3 crimes that Congress and the States may define by law

4 pursuant to section 3, shall have the rights to notice of

5 and not to be excluded from all public proceedings relating

6 to the crime; to be heard if present and to submit a state7 ment at a public pre-trial or trial proceeding to determine

8 a release from custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea,

9 or a sentence; to these rights at a parole proceeding to

10 the extent they are afforded to the convicted offender; to

11 notice of a release pursuant to a public or parole proceed12 ing or an escape; to a final disposition free from unreason13 able delay; to an order of restitution from the convicted

14 offender; to have the safety of the victim considered in

15 determining a release from custody; and to notice of the

16 rights established by this article.

17 ‘‘SECTION 2. The victim shall have standing to assert

18 the rights established by this article; however, nothing in

19 this article shall provide grounds for the victim to chal20 lenge a charging decision or a conviction, obtain a stay

21 of trial, or compel a new trial; nor shall anything in this

22 article give rise to a claim for damages against the United

23 States, a State, a political subdivision, or a public official;

24 nor shall anything in this article provide grounds for the

25 accused or convicted offender to obtain any form of relief.
3

SJ 65 IS

1 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress and the States shall have

2 the power to enforce this article within their respective

3 Federal and State jurisdictions by appropriate legislation,

4 including the power to enact exceptions when required for

5 compelling reasons of public safety.

6 ‘‘SECTION 4. The rights established by this article

7 shall be applicable to all proceedings occurring after ratifi8 cation of this article.

9 ‘‘SECTION 5. The rights established by this article

10 shall apply in all Federal, State, military, and juvenile jus11 tice proceedings, and shall also apply to victims in the Dis12 trict of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or

13 possession of the United States.’’.

Æ
# Official Journal C 84A/7 Ap

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 84A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 497 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 84A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 497 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2006/C 084A/1 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Medicines Agency

2006/C 084A/1

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129274 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129274 

 COA: 260059 

Wayne CC: 02-004943-FY

TONY DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2005 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. 

t1121 

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. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
#### Gerald ERWIN and Nancy Erwin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15673

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 4, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 15, 2017

Harold P. Gewerter, Esquire, Attorney, Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, Elaine Alexandra Dowling, Counsel, EAD Law Group, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Richard C. Gordon, Esquire, Attorney, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Andrew Martin Jacobs, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, Amy F. Sorenson, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CLIFTON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Homeowners Gerald and Nancy Erwin (“appellants”) appeal from the district *421court’s dismissal, on timeliness grounds, of their action alleging that Wells Fargo (“ap-pellee”) failed to participate in good faith in proceedings mandated by Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (“FMP”) and Section 107.086 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. We affirm.

We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, *ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co.,*765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014), and resolve issues of state law as we believe the state’s highest court would resolve them, *HS Servs., Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*109 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court correctly dismissed appellants’ action as untimely because it was filed several months after the parties received notice of the mediator’s decision, which is outside the thirty-day limitations period that applies to petitions for judicial review under Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Rules (“FMR”). *See*FMR 23(3) (providing that petitions for judicial review “shall be filed” within 30 days of the date the party to mediation receives notification of the mediator’s decision).1 Further, the district court correctly construed appellants’ action as a petition for judicial review because their claims, however captioned, arose exclusively under Section 107.086.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

1

. The FMRs have been revised and renumbered several times. The district court cited FMR 22(3) for the limitations period, quoting: "All such petitions shall be filed within 30 days of the date that the party to mediation received the notification of the issuance or non issu-anee of a certificate.” The parties do not address which version of the FMRs applies, but neither suggests that any amendment to the rules bears upon the issues presented.
#### Wanda J. BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RODGER, Norfolk Neighborhood Development; Cleve Chappell; David Firnstalh; Josh Haight; Ronald Lee; Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Renovation Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2199

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Wanda J. Burks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wanda J. Burks appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for *181lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. .R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Burks v. Rodger,*No. 2:17-cv-00390-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2017). 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*

*

 Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, the district court’s order is a final appealable order under *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc,,*807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015), and *Martin v. Duffy,*858 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2017) (“repeated, ineffective attempts at amendment suggest that further amendment of the complaint would be futile”).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

April 4, 2012 

y0328 

Order 

 

April 4, 2012 

143992 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143992 

 COA: 305949 

GERALD PRINCE, Wayne CC: 06-011010-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2011 

order 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6425 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6425

To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations relating 
  to the taking of double-crested cormorants to reduce depredation at 
          aquaculture facilities and protect public resources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2016

 Mr. Crawford (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Sewell of 
Alabama, Mr. Harper, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Hill, Mr. Womack, 
and Mr. Aderholt) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations relating 
  to the taking of double-crested cormorants to reduce depredation at 
          aquaculture facilities and protect public resources.

    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 ``Safeguard Aquaculture Farmers Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING OF DOUBLE-CRESTED 
              CORMORANTS.

    (a) Force and Effect.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), section 21.47 
        of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 
        date of enactment of this Act) shall have the force and effect 
        of law.
            (2) Public notice.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred 
        to in this section as the ``Secretary''), acting through the 
        Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
        (referred to in this section as the ``Director''), shall notify 
        the public of the authority provided by paragraph (1) in a 
        manner determined appropriate by the Secretary.
    (b) Sunset.--The authority provided by subsection (a)(1) shall 
terminate on the date that is the earlier of--
            (1) the effective date of a regulation promulgated by the 
        Director after the date of enactment of this Act to control 
        depredation of double-crested cormorant populations; or
            (2) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section limits the 
authority of the Director to promulgate regulations relating to the 
taking of double-crested cormorants under any other law.
                                 <all>
```