alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022109EN.01001802.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case C-29/22 P)

(2022/C 109/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KS and KD (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and P. Koutrakos, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court;

| — | alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and

| — | order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the ground that the General Court erred in law by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action that the appellants had brought seeking reparation for the damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their fundamental human rights by the respondents. The ground of appeal is divided in four parts.

First, the General Court erred in law by interpreting broadly the CFSP (European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy) exclusion laid down in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU.

Second, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793).

Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 25 March 2021, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (C-565/19 P, not published, EU:C:2021:252).

Fourth, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the claim and not providing sufficient reasons for its decision.

---
# C_2021490EN.01005101.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/51

---

Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company v Commission

(Case T-662/21)

(2021/C 490/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Troy Chemical Company BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Ł. Gorywoda and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision C (2021) 5968 final of 5 August 2021 partially refusing access to documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision C (2021) 5968 final of 5 August 2021 partially refusing access to documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), in its entirety;

| — | grand the request for an expedited procedure under Art. 151 and 152 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grand the request for an expedited procedure under Art. 151 and 152 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require; |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the second indent of Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — which is an infringement of both ‘an essential procedural requirement’ and a ‘rule of law’. It is alleged that the facts of the present case do not justify the exemptions claimed by the defendant for refusal to disclose redacted sections of the requested documents and, in any event, the overriding public interest in transparency and openness of the legislative process favors the full disclosure of the documents request of the applicant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43-48).

---
Exhibit 99.2

 

CERTIFICATION

 

	Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 3, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:	September 17, 2002				/s/ Jodi L. Taylor			
Name:  Jodi L. Taylor

Title:	Chief Financial Officer

 

 

	The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350.
No. 11-10310.

#### Cini *v.*Cini.

Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021128EN.01005201.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/52

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-119/21)

(2021/C 128/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.

---
# C_2022073EN.01005401.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/54

---

Action brought on 18 December 2021 — EAA v Commission

(Case T-781/21)

(2022/C 73/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Aluminium Association (EAA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, by which the Commission does not order the collection of provisional duties; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, by which the Commission does not order the collection of provisional duties;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has acted in breach of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof, the object and purpose of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the established Commission practice to order the collection of provisional duties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has acted in breach of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof, the object and purpose of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the established Commission practice to order the collection of provisional duties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not complied with the obligation under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not complied with the obligation under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not comply with the principles of due process and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not comply with the principles of due process and good administration.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 8 June 2016, on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11707]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Rodin in the United States: Confronting the Modern” at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts; the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-07454 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41680

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONEL ESTRADA-ZAMORA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-612-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leonel Estrada-Zamora (Estrada) appeals his 46-month

sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Estrada argues for the first

time on appeal that the district court erred in imposing a

sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Assuming arguendo

that the written plea agreement does not foreclose review of this

argument, we review it for plain error. See United States v.
No. 04-41680

-2-

Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d

511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Estrada

concedes that he cannot demonstrate that the district court would

likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory

sentencing scheme. His argument that this error is structural,

or at least presumptively prejudicial, is foreclosed, see United

States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 464 (2005), and his argument that we require

proof by a preponderance of the evidence that this error affected

his substantial rights lacks merit. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 521;

Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d at 601.

Estrada’s constitutional challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Estrada contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the

basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States

v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 298 (2005). Estrada properly concedes that his argument

is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review. 

AFFIRMED.
ex10-25.htm


Exhibit 10.25



 





FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


 







 


This First Amendment to the Lock-Up Agreement is executed on this 25th day of March, 2014.  Reference is made to that certain the Lock-Up Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 18, 2011, by and between, Man Shek Ng, a shareholder of the Company (the “Holder”) and Nova LifeStyle, Inc.,  a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).  Any capitalized terms in this amendment not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Lock-Up Agreement (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties agree that the definition of Lock-Up Period in the Agreement is not clear with respect to the situation of an Offering closing within one year from the date of the Agreement;







WHEREAS, the parties further agree to clarify the lock up period if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date of the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The seventh paragraph of the Agreement shall be modified to add a new item (iii) as follows: if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date hereof, then three years from the date hereof.  After the modification, the seventh paragraph of the Agreement shall read as follows:


 


This Letter Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof and automatically terminate upon the earliest to occur of (i) three years following the date the Company’s securities are listed on a registered national securities exchange, (ii) if the closing of an Offering does not occur within one year from the date hereof, then two years from the date hereof, or (iii) if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date hereof, then three years from the date hereof (the “Lock-Up Period”)


 


2. This first amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which shall constitute an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute but one contract.


 


3. Except as amended hereby, or as otherwise amended, the Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed and the provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect.


 


(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)


(SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS)


 




  





1











  






 


                     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCK-UP AGREEMENT on the date first written above.


 












For and on behalf of:


 


NOVA LIFESTYLE, INC.



	  	  
	  	
 


By_____________________


Name: Tawny Lam


Title: Chairperson and President













	
 


Man Shek Ng


 

	  	  	  	  
	
By_____________________


Name: Man Shek Ng


 

	  	  	  	  












  





2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8936 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide enhanced Federal 

matching payments for homecare worker training programs, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2020 

Mrs. DINGELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

enhanced Federal matching payments for homecare 

worker training programs, 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 ‘‘Homecare Worker 

5 Training Improvement Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID FUNDING FOR HOMECARE WORKER 

7 TRAINING PROGRAMS. 

8 Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1396b) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8936 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end 

2 the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(F) for calendar quarters beginning on or 

4 after January 1, 2021, amount equal to 75 percent 

5 of so much of the sums expended during such quar6 ter for homecare worker training programs described 

7 in subsection (bb) (including the costs for eligible 

8 homecare workers (as defined in such subsection) to 

9 complete such programs); plus’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(bb) HOMECARE WORKER TRAINING PROGRAMS.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A homecare worker train14 ing program described in this subsection is a pro15 gram approved by the State under which eligible 

16 homecare workers are provided with— 

17 ‘‘(A) training in the core training com18 petencies for personal or homecare aides de19 scribed in section 2008(b)(3)(A); and 

20 ‘‘(B) opportunities for education, training, 

21 and career advancement. 

22 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE HOMECARE WORKER.—The term 

23 ‘eligible homecare worker’ means a personal or 

24 homecare aide (as such term is defined in section 

25 2008(b)(6)(C)) who— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8936 IH

1 ‘‘(A) has at least 30 percent of the work2 er’s patient volume (as estimated in accordance 

3 with a methodology established by the Sec4 retary) attributable to individuals who are re5 ceiving medical assistance under this title; or 

6 ‘‘(B) is employed by an agency that is a 

7 provider of personal or homecare services that 

8 has at least 30 percent of the agency’s patient 

9 volume (as so estimated) attributable to such 

10 individuals.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### COM. v. RUSH, J.

1808 WDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

CP-02-CR-0003932-2012 (Allegheny)

Vacated/Remanded
No. 11-10373.

#### Rhine *v.*Deaton et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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  Quarterly  Report of  Telestone  Technologies
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005
as filed  with the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the
Report).  I, Liu  Dongping,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Liu Dongping 3
-----------------------
Liu Dongping
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005