alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

December 17, 2015 (202)479.3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Thomas Ray Sides

v. Texas

No. 15-7396

(Your No. WR-66,982-05; WR-66,982-06)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on

August 12, 2015 and placed on the docket December 17, 2015 as No. 15-7396.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by

Michael Duggan

Case Analyst

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 22 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
# Career and Technical Education (CTE)

- U.S. Department of Education Announces Winners of the $1 Million Future Finder Challenge to Support Adult Learners The U.S.
- New Resource Highlights How States Use American Rescue Plan Funds to Reengage Students through Career and Technical Education Today, the U.S. Department of Education released a new fact sheet highlighting ways states and school districts are using American Rescue Plan funds to reengage students and enhance academic learning by expanding career and technical education (CTE) opportunities.
#### MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, INC., Nitronex, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Defendant *893Infineon Technologies Americas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

2017-1882

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided February 7, 2018

Amanda Tessar, Perkins Coie, LLP, Denver, CO, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Elizabeth M. Banzhoff; Dan L. Bagatell, Hanover, NH; Daniel Tyler Keese, Portland, OR.

David G. Wille, Baker Botts, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Jeffery D. Baxter, Brian Douglas Johnston.

Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach And Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Prost, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. and Nitronex, LLC (collectively, “MACOM”) sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against defendant Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. (“Infineon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court’s December 7, 2016 preliminary injunction declared that Infineon’s termination of an agreement was ineffective and ordered Infineon to comply with that agreement. J.A. 50-52 (the “Injunction”). Infineon appealed the Injunction on several grounds in Case No. 2017-1448 (the “First Appeal”), a companion to this appeal.

Days before filing its Notice of Appeal in the First Appeal, Infineon moved the district court to modify the Injunction. On March 6, 2017, while the First Appeal was pending, the district court ruled for Infi-neon and modified the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Injunction. J.A. 2868, 2865-66 (the “Modified Injunction”). MACOM appeals the Modified Injunction and argues 'that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Injunction while it was on appeal in the First Appeal; and (2) the district court’s modification reflected an erroneous interpretation of the agreement.

We vacated the first sentence of the Injunction’s third paragraph in the First Appeal. Thus, the issues of whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify the Injunction while it was on appeal and whether the district court’s modification reflected an erroneous interpretation of •the agreement are moot.1 We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED

Costs

The parties shall bear their own costs.

1

. *See*Infineon’s Br. 42 (arguing that vacating the third paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal would moot this appeal); Oral Argument at 8:19-40, *MACOM Tech. Solutions*Holdings, *Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG*(No. 2017-1882), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ oral-argument-recordings (colloquy with MA-COM’s counsel regarding mootness implications of vacating the third paragraph of the Injunction in the First Appeal).
No. 11-10009.

#### Howard *v.*Evans, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### COM. v. WILLIAMS, R.

255 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-26-CR-0001289-2016 (Fayette)

Affirmed
# C_2023278EN.01002101.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/21

---

Order of the General Court of 19 June 2023 — PS v EEAS

(Case T-327/22) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Change of place of employment - Addendum to the contract of employment - Purely confirmatory measure - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 278/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: A. Ireland and S. Falek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the addendum to his contract of employment signed on 23 July 2021 and, so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 22 February 2022 rejecting his complaint of 20 October 2021.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | PS shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

PS shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---
#### Jorge BRIONES, Petitioner-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-30409 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2018

Jorge Briones, Pro Se

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Briones, federal prisoner # 60871-054 and proceeding *pro se,*appeals the denial of his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged the punishment imposed by a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO), following his disciplinary conviction, for possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool, namely a cell-phone charger, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.3. His punishment included 60 days of disciplinary segregation, a disallowance of 41 days of good-conduct time, forfeiture of 270 days of non-vested good conduct time, a $180 fine, and a one-year loss of visitation and telephone privileges. He claims his punishment was disproportionately harsh, considering his claimed minor offense.

Briones does not challenge, *inter alia-.*the district court’s determination the disciplinary proceedings comported with the standards of *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 560-66, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); its conclusion many of Briones’ punishments did not implicate a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, pursuant to *Madison v. Parker,*104 F.3d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir. 1997), and *Malchi v. Thaler,*211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000); or the DHO’s description of his cell-phone charger as a “cell phone”, when determining his punishment. Therefore, he has abandoned any such challenges. *United States v. Scroggins,*599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

*439The Code of Federal .Regulations’ classification of his offense among those given the “greatest severity level”, does not support Briones’ characterization of his offense as minor. 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 (Table 1). Also, although he contends his punishment was too severe and other offenders receive less severe punishments, his punishment is within the range authorized by the regulation. *Id.*He has, therefore, failed to establish a constitutional or federal law violation, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

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.
# C_2023164EN.01002601.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/26

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o. v KG

(Case C-530/22, (1) Dunaj-Finanse)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Rail transport - Passengers’ rights and obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Article 3(8) - Transport contract - Concept - Passenger without a ticket at the time of boarding a train - Consumer protection)

(2023/C 164/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o.

Defendant: KG

Operative part of the order

Article 3(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) and (2) of Appendix A in Annex I to that regulation

must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no transport contract is concluded between a carrier and a passenger who boards a freely accessible train without the intention of purchasing a ticket.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 9.8.2022.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60556 Summary Calendar

__________________

ROBERT F. WILKINS,

Petitioner,

versus

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC.; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

______________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (93-1044)

______________________________________________

July 18, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert F. Wilkins (Wilkins) petitions for review of a decision

of the Benefits Review Board affirming an order by an

administrative law judge (ALJ) denying a dditional benefits. We

affirm.

Wilkins contend s that the ALJ erred in finding that Wilkins2

did not sustain an injury to his back while working on the job for

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. We review the Board's decisions for

errors of law and apply the substantial evidence standard that

governs factual findings made by the ALJ. D arby v. Ingalls

Shipbuilding, Inc.
, 99 F.3d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 1996). We therefore

must affirm decisions of the Board that correctly determine "that

the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are in

accordance with the law." Id

.

The record reveals that the Board properly concluded that the

ALJ's factual finding that the back injury did not occur on the job

was supported by substantial evidence. At best, the evidence

reflects a credibility conflict that w as best left to the

factfinder, the ALJ, to resolve. Darby , 99 F.3d at 688-89.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2023338EN.01002201.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — Topas v EUIPO — Tarczyński (VEGE STORY)

(Case T-434/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VEGE STORY - Earlier EU word mark végé’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 338/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Topas GmbH (Mössingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tarczyński S.A. (Trzebnica, Poland) (represented by: E. Gryc-Zerych, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2022 (Case R 1977/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Topas GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tarczyński S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Topas GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tarczyński S.A.;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report included in this
Form 10-K as it relates to Washington Energy Company and
Washington Natural Gas Company (the Companies), into Puget
Sound Energy, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement
File Nos. 33-26818, 33-27396, 333-41181, 333-41113, 333-
41157 and 333-23393.  It should be noted that we have not
audited any financial statements of the Companies subsequent
to September 30, 1996 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.

							Arthur Andersen LLP

Seattle, Washington,
March 25, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10520-10521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 871]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 147; Reading, Pennsylvania, Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Foreign Trade Zone Corporation of 
Southeastern Pennsylvania, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 147, for 
authority to expand Foreign-Trade Zone 147 to expand an existing site 
and include additional sites in Berks and York Counties, Pennsylvania, 
was filed by the Board on January 17, 1996 (FTZ Docket 3-96, 61 FR 
2487, 1/26/96); and,
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in Federal 
Register and the application has been processed

[[Page 10521]]

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 147 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to 
the standard 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of February 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 97-5631 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

DAOJIA LIMITED 
  

			
	Number	  	Ordinary Shares

 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 

Share capital is US$100,000 divided into 40,000,000 shares comprising of 

(i) 38,000,000,000 Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0000025 each, 

(ii) 2,000,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0000025 each of such class or classes (however designated) as Directors
may determine in accordance with the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY
THAT                 is the registered holder of  

Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. 

EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the          day
of                by: 

DIRECTOR
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,536,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  608,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,000
<INVENTORY>                                     34,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,582,268
<PP&E>                                       4,995,595
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,982,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,991,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,378,086
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          857,333
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,759
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,515,255
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,991,345
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,342,854
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,388,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,538
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,622)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-20893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0366; Special Conditions No. 25-564-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-550 Airplane; Flight 
Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System

Correction

    In rule document 2014-20893 appearing on pages 52165 through 52169 
in the issue of Wednesday, September 3, 2014, make the following 
corrections:
    1. On page 52169, in the first column, the 27th line from the 
bottom should read: ``In lieu of Sec.  25.107(c) and (g) we propose the 
following requirements, with additional sections (c') and (g'):''
    2. On page 52169, in the first column, the 11th line from the 
bottom should read: ``(c') In icing conditions with the ``takeoff ice'' 
accretion defined in part 25, appendix C, V2 may not be less than--''
    3. On page 52169, in the second column, the eighth line from the 
top should read: ``(g') In icing conditions with the ``final takeoff 
ice'' accretion defined in part 25, appendix C, VFTO, may 
not be less than--''

[FR Doc. C1-2014-20893 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
```
# C_2022463EN.01005201.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/52

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2022 — OO v EIB

(Case T-134/22) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance reduced by half - Salary statement - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks annulment of the notice of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 27 February 2012, in so far as that notice grants her an expatriation allowance reduced by half.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | OO shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OO shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2009 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: August 5, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Travis Gerome THORNTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30582 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 27, 2018

*364Oam Thi Le, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mary Patricia Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Travis Gerome Thornton, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Travis Gerome Thornton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Thornton has not' filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nqnírivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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. -