alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021128EN.01004101.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/41

---

Action brought on 21 January 2021 — PZ v Commission

(Case T-49/21)

(2021/C 128/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the 2019 appraisal report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019, communicated to the applicant on 19 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the 2019 appraisal report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019, communicated to the applicant on 19 February 2020;

| — | together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of 23 October 2020 (notified to the applicant on 30 October 2020) rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2020 and |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of 23 October 2020 (notified to the applicant on 30 October 2020) rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2020 and

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment by the defendant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons by the defendant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of his right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of his right to be heard.

| 4. | Forth plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the appraisal officer. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging lack of independence of the appraisal officer.

---
#### Julio Cesar Arce GUILLEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-2176

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 8, 2018

Decided: March 14, 2018

Adina Appelbaum, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS (CAIR) COALITION, Washington, D.C.; Gabriel K. Gil-lett, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew E. Price, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Ver-by, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Arce Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of *291removal.1 We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Guil-len’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Guillen failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground. Guil-len also fails to show that he was denied due process. *See Anim v. Mukasey,*535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). (stating elements of a due process claim in a removal case). Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for review.2 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.

*PETITION DENIED*

1

. Guillen does not challenge the finding that his asylum application was untimely or that he did not meet his burden of proof for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, these issues are not reviewable. *Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder,*714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (deeming issues not raised in opening brief waived).

2

. Because the Board did not reach Guillen’s claim that the IJ erred in finding that he was not a member of a particular social group, we need not address Guillen's arguments on this issue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3
<INVENTORY>                                        265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   678
<PP&E>                                           3,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              750
<BONDS>                                            807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               80
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,606
<SALES>                                          4,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,936
<CGS>                                            4,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  80
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    618
<INCOME-TAX>                                       229
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.86
        

</TABLE>
#### SHANLING LU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70561

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Shanling Lu, Pro Se

John M. McAdams, Jr., OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICJS, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shanling Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations, created by the REAL ID Act, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Lu references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies as to whether Lu had a receipt for paying the fine levied when he and his wife had a second child, how Lu signed an agreement to forfeit his land, when Lu received notice the government was confiscating his land and when he protested the confiscation, and whether he had lived outside of his family home. *926*See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Lu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Lu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1163, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Lu’s contentions as to corroboration, or the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Lu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Lu does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. *Id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 829 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.829

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, as the ``Army Specialist 
               Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST THOMAS J. WILWERTH POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           5,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,269
<INVENTORY>                                     64,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,086
<PP&E>                                          57,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,123
<BONDS>                                         55,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           537
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,794
<SALES>                                         55,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,518
<CGS>                                           51,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,240)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,240)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.19)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022011EN.01003101.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/31

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Bakhanovich v Council

(Case T-583/21)

(2022/C 11/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | 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 three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10622-10623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5607]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

February 28, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to begin the surveys described below 
April 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by March 12, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
study, please contact the IRS Clearance Officer at the address listed 
below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1349.
    Project Number: SOI-27.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: 1997 941 TeleFile User and Non-user Customer Satisfaction 
Surveys.
    Description: The 941 TeleFile Quality Measurement Team with the 
assistance of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Behavioral Research 
Science Laboratory has developed two mail-out/mail back customer 
satisfaction surveys. A non-user customer survey will collect data from 
a sample of businesses that did not (or could not) use the 941 TeleFile 
system during the first filing quarter (April-May 1997). The user 
survey will collect data from a sample of businesses that successfully 
used 941 TeleFile during the second 1997 filing quarter (July-August 
1997). The surveys will be conducted as part of a four quarter pilot 
test of the 941 TeleFile system in the Tennessee Computing Center 
starting in April 1997 and concluding in May 1998. The purpose of the 
surveys is to obtain feedback from businesses on the IRS marketing 
effort, reasons why businesses used or did not use TeleFile, and 
receive suggestions on how the IRS can improve the 941 TeleFile system.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,788.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:
      1997 First Quarter Non-User Customer Survey--5 minutes.
      1997 Second Quarter User Customer Survey--10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 369 hours.

[[Page 10623]]

    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5607 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2021217EN.01005701.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/57

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)

(Case T-194/21)

(2021/C 217/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stelis Biopharma ltd. (Karnataka, India)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative HYALOSTEL ONE mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 399 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2021 in Case R 831/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-7756.

#### Castillo *v.*Smith, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO

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 Form 10-Q of the National Housing
Trust Limited Partnership for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof, I James A Bowman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Limited Partnership, do hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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, that financial condition and result of operations of the Limited
     Partnership.

Date   November 19, 2002             By /s/ James A Bowman
      -------------------               ------------------
                                      James A. Bowman, President
                                      and Chief Executive Officer
                                      NHT, Inc., General Partner for
                                      National Housing Trust Limited Partnership
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 06-0294

IN RE  ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s Motion for Temporary Relief from the Trial Court’s January 27th Order, filed April 12, 2006, is granted.   The order dated January 27, 2006, in Cause No. GV401268, styled *The State of Texas ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Hospira, Inc., B. Braun Medical, Inc., and Baxter Healthcare Corporation*, in the 201st District Court of Travis County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real parties in interest are requested to respond to relator’s motion for temporary relief and petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., April 25, 2006.

Done at the City of Austin, this April 13, 2006.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00424

- CV
In the Interest of C.C., A Child
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2013

- FAM

- 61073

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. October 16, 2014