alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 E0 03 0 . J AMES v

. ATLANTA I NDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et a l

.

On Decem

b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 6, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Sh o n d y l o n J am es ’ p et i t i o n fo r

wri t o f cert i o rari

, m o t io n fo r l eav e t o ad d p art i e s a n d p art i al m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, an d gran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o t he d efen d an t s , t h e A t l an t a In d ep en d en t

Sch oo l Sy s t e m a n d t h e At l an t a Bo ard o f Ed u cat i o n o n J am es ’ cl ai m s rel at ed to

v i o l at i o n s o f t h e Geo rg i a Op en Reco rd s Act

. On Jan u ary 1 8, 2 0 1 7

, t h i s Co u rt

recei v ed an d d o ck et ed J am es ’ em erg en cy m o ti o n fo r an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e t o fi l e h er

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

, wh i ch i s d u e t o b e fi l ed i n t h is Co urt o n J an u ary

3 0

, 2 0 1 7

. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 1 6 (c) (“ Req u es t s fo r ex t en s i o n s o f t i m e t o fi l e

d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n s m u s t b e d i rect ed t o t h i s Co u rt an d s h o ul d b e fi led p u rs u an t

t o Ru l e 4 0 (b ), Em erg en cy M o t i o n s .”)

Th i s Co urt h av in g rev i ewed t h e m o t i o n , i n wh i ch J am es co n t en d s , am o n g o t h er

t h i n g s , t h e u n av ai l ab il it y

o f cert ai n t ran s cri p t s an d p en d i ng co urt act i o ns , an d u p o n

rev i ew o f t h e o rd er b ei n g ap p eal ed

, t h e req u es t fo r an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e t o fi l e an

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i s h ereb y DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 20, 2017

01/20/2017
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Amendment No. 1 to this Quarterly Report of Mayors
Jewelers, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the thirteen weeks ended June
26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive 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:  (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 results of operations of the
Company. Date: January 7, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. AndruskevichThomas A. AndruskevichChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. Myrtle E. Harris.

154 So. 829.

Opinion Filed May 1, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 31, 1934.

*Blackwell & Gray,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Peters & Kemp,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— Writ of error here is to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, which judgment was for the sum of $2,500.00.

The suit was based upon the claim of the plaintiff for damages because of injuries received by reason of the collision between defendant’s bus and a street car, on which plaintiff was a passenger, and which collision and injury it was alleged was caused by the negligent operation of the bus by defendant through its agents and servant.

We have carefully considered the record in the light of the splendid briefs prepared and submitted to us by counsel for the respective parties with the result that we find no reversible error.

Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the amount of the judgment appears to be excessive and that a remittitur of $1,000.00 should be required as a condition to affirmance of the judgment.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
ex103.htm


Exhibit 10.3


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION.


54 Cummings Park


Suite 316


Woburn, MA 01801


 



December 29, 2013







Re:           Magnolia Solar Corporation







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to that certain (i) Second Amended and Restated Original Issue Discount Senior Secured Convertible Note of Magnolia Solar Corporation (the “Company”) dated December 21, 2012 in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the signature line below held by the undersigned (the “Second Amended Note”), and (ii) Second Amended and Restated Warrant dated December 21, 2012 as evidenced by the warrant number referenced in the signature line below (the “Second Amended Warrant”). Reference is further made to those other notes and/or warrants (the “Other Notes” and “Other Warrants”, respectively), originally issued, directly or indirectly, in connection with that certain offering of 26.6 units of the Company that closed on December 31, 2009 and which resulted, either directly or indirectly, in the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant.







1. Effective as of the date hereof, the holder of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant (the “Holder”) and the Company hereby agree as follows: (i) the Maturity Date of the Second Amended Note, as such term is defined therein, is extended to December 31, 2014, (ii) the Warrant Price of the Second Amended Warrant, as such term is defined therein, is reduced to $0.10 per share, and (iii) except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.







2. The Holder hereby waives any adjustment under Section 5 of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant that (i) may arise under the provisions of Section 1 herein, (ii) may arise as a result of the extension of the term of any Other Note, (iii) as a result of the reduction of the Warrant Price of any Other Warrant, and/or (B) may have occurred at any time after the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant through to and including the date hereof.







Upon the mutual execution of this agreement, please affix this agreement to the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant held by the undersigned.


 



	 	
Very truly yours,


 


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION


	 	  
	 	/s/ Ashok K. Sood 	
12/29/2013


	 	
By: Dr. Ashok K. Sood


	 	
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

















Agreed and Accepted


as of the date hereof:










	
 
/s/ Alan Donenfeld



	
 







By: Mr. Alan Donenfeld


Title: General Partner, Paragon Capital Offshore, LP












Principal Amount of Note: _$300,000___







Warrant No: __MSC-002A________
# C_2023179EN.01001302.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-490/22 P)

(2023/C 179/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: KN (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

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

By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KN should bear her own costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JUAN BAUTISTA ALOMIA-TORRES, a/k/a Juan Baustista-Alomia, a/k/a Luis Antonio Torres, a/k/a Edward Martinez, a/k/a Luis Alfredo Martinez, a/k/a John the Jamaican, a/k/a John, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-2; 3:01-CV-301-V-SW)

Submitted: July 24, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres seeks to appeal the district court’s April 20, 2006, order construing his Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (WestSupp. 2009) motion and dismissing it without prejudice. AlomiaTorres previously sought to appeal this order, but we dismissed his appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

See United States v. Alomia-Torres , 286 F. App’x 11 (4th Cir. 2008) (No. 07-7771). In November 2008, the district court granted Alomia-Torres’s October 2007 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the April 2006 order,extending the appeal period until January 23, 2009. AlomiaTorres then filed another notice of appeal. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that thedistrict court erred in granting Alomia-Torres’ motion. AlomiaTorres stated in his motion that he received the district court’s order on October 5, 2007. He did not file a motion for extension or reopening of the appeal period until October 22,

2007. ∗ Rule 4(a)(6)(B) requires that a motion to reopen the appeal period be filed “within 180 days after the judgment or

∗ We assume that the date appearing on the certificate of service attached to the motion is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 497 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

23 order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier.” Here, Alomia-Torres failed to file his motion either within seven days of receiving notice of the entry of the district court’s order or within 180 days after the order was entered. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021278EN.01006501.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/65

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

(Case T-287/21)

(2021/C 278/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SALATINA — European Union trade mark No 15 940 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 889/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present application;

| — | reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 905 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark SALATINA and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 905 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark SALATINA and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

| — | order EUIPO to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on grounds of bad faith; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on grounds of bad faith;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1434

TAWANDA BLAIR, on behalf of ILB,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-02099-RMG)

Submitted: August 7, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawanda Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince II, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tawanda Blair appeals the district court’s order 

upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for 

supplemental security income. The district court referred this 

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Blair that failure 

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Blair 

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court.

We deny the motion to transfer and dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2022380EN.01000302.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 July 2022 — P Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-442/22)

(2022/C 380/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P Sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where an employee of a VAT taxable person has issued a fraudulent invoice showing VAT, on which he or she has included the employer’s details as the taxable person, without that employer’s knowledge and consent, the person who enters the VAT on the invoice and who is thus liable to pay the VAT is to be considered:






  — | the VAT taxable person whose details were unlawfully used in the invoice; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where an employee of a VAT taxable person has issued a fraudulent invoice showing VAT, on which he or she has included the employer’s details as the taxable person, without that employer’s knowledge and consent, the person who enters the VAT on the invoice and who is thus liable to pay the VAT is to be considered:

—

the VAT taxable person whose details were unlawfully used in the invoice; or

| — | the employee who unlawfully entered VAT on that invoice using the details of the VAT taxable person? |
| --- | --- |

—

the employee who unlawfully entered VAT on that invoice using the details of the VAT taxable person?

| 2. | In connection with the question of who is to be considered, within the meaning of Article 203 of the aforementioned Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the person who enters VAT on the invoice and is thus liable to pay VAT in the circumstances described in Question 1, is it relevant whether the VAT taxable person that employs the employee who unlawfully entered that taxable person’s details on a VAT invoice may be considered to have failed to exercise due diligence in supervising that employee? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In connection with the question of who is to be considered, within the meaning of Article 203 of the aforementioned Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the person who enters VAT on the invoice and is thus liable to pay VAT in the circumstances described in Question 1, is it relevant whether the VAT taxable person that employs the employee who unlawfully entered that taxable person’s details on a VAT invoice may be considered to have failed to exercise due diligence in supervising that employee?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 3,704 

Early Voting:8 1,951 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

23,228,900 15,398,923 (66.3% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

15,305,243 (99.4% of 

returned)

92,924 (0.6% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections statewide15

Any voter can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

58 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

26,157,616 

Registration Forms Received2*

13,498,938 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

6,682,336 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: California

 Voter Registration

3.3%

4.9%

9.8%

22.2%

44.3%

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Online

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

1,124,389

6.3%

Mail Voters 

14,515,783

81.4%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

966,201

5.4%

Other Mode

1,233,931

6.9%

Voters Participating By Mode5

56

38

34

1 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Electronic

Poll

Books

DRE with

VVPAT

DRE w/o

VVPAT

Hand

Count

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov.

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities.

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout6

68.1%
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5825]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-1117-000]


TC Power Solutions; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 5, 1997.
    TC Power Solutions (TC Power) submitted for filing a rate schedule 
under which TC Power will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. TC Power also requested waiver of various 
Commission regulations. In particular, TC Power requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by TC Power.
    On February 18, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by TC Power should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, TC Power is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of TC Power's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is March 20, 1997. Copies of 
the full text of the order are available from the Commission's Public 
Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5825 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M