alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023035EN.01003602.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 November 2022 — Fondee a.s. v Česká národní banka

(Case C-695/22)

(2023/C 35/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fondee a.s.

Defendant: Česká národní banka

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a person who is, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (MiFID II), excluded from the scope of that Directive, and who does not, pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Directive, enjoy the freedom to provide services as defined in Article 34 thereof, enjoy the right to freedom to provide services embodied in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if it itself does not provide investment services on the basis of a single European passport to a client established in another Member State, but rather receives an investment service from a foreign entity using a single European passport or otherwise takes part in its provision to the end client (acts as an intermediary)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a person who is, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (MiFID II), excluded from the scope of that Directive, and who does not, pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Directive, enjoy the freedom to provide services as defined in Article 34 thereof, enjoy the right to freedom to provide services embodied in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if it itself does not provide investment services on the basis of a single European passport to a client established in another Member State, but rather receives an investment service from a foreign entity using a single European passport or otherwise takes part in its provision to the end client (acts as an intermediary)?

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, does EU law, namely Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, preclude legislation prohibiting an investment broker from transmitting a client’s order to a foreign securities trader? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, does EU law, namely Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, preclude legislation prohibiting an investment broker from transmitting a client’s order to a foreign securities trader?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 349.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto DIAZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Juan Alberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto Diaz-Hernandez, also known as Juan Alberto Diaz, also known as Alberto Diaz, also known as Alberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50630 Summary Calendar Consolidated with 17-50634

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alberto Diaz-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Diaz-Hernandez 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Diaz-Hernandez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RAYMOND RICARDO WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0695

[August 1, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CF006506AXXX.

Raymond Ricardo Williams, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Bradford County Bank, and Joseph E. Wilson, Liquidator, v. Atlantic National Bank, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of N. T. Ritch, deceased.

153 So. 93.

Opinion Filed February 27, 1934.

J. *E. Frazee, Baxter & Clayton*and *W. B. Watson, Jr.,*for Appellant;

*88*Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne, John C. Cooper, Jr.,*and *Cyril C. Copp,*for Appellee.

Davis, C. J.

— In this suit complainant, Bradford County-Bank (appellant here), filed its bill of complaint against defendant, The Atlantic National Bank, as executor of the last will and testament of N. T. Ritch, deceased (appellee here), alleging that at the time of the death of one N. T. Ritch the deceased held in trust for the use and benefit of the complainant the sum of $2,285.32, which, with interest due thereon, he had failed and neglected to pay over to complainant bank prior to his death. The prayer of the bill was for an accounting and an appropriate decree for complainant based thereon to require the executor to pay over the sum claimed to be due, to complainant. Demurrer to the bill was overruled, an answer filed, and final decree for defendant was rendered on the merits of the cause as disclosed by the pleadings and testimony.

By the pleadings the issue was presented whether or not at the time of the death of Ritch, he then had and held in his hands the sum sued for, as trust moneys capable of being traced and distinguished and which had inured to the benefit of the complainant bank. The effect of the decree for defendant was to hold that the complainant had not proved its case, in consequence of which the bill was dismissed on final hearing.

A review of the evidence would subserve no useful purpose. There is a sufficient basis in it considered as a whole, to support the view that if there was not a complete discharge of all the parties to the settlement that had been had in 1925 between Sapp, Ritch and the Bradford *County*Bank, that by a novation of the obligations involved Ritch simply became a principal debtor to the Bradford County Bank for the amount of $2,285.32, The latter view appears to be the correct one, but whether it is or not, the *89Chancellor found for the defendant against the substance of complainant’s attempted proof of an enforceable trust of the character that was declared on in the pleadings and. controverted on the issues here involved. That being true, the bill was properly dismissed and the final decree should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2021138EN.01003801.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/38

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission

(Case T-58/21)

(2021/C 138/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hameln, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the merger of E.ON/Innogy to be compatible with the internal market, (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the merger of E.ON/Innogy to be compatible with the internal market, (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);

| — | order the defendant to provide the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to provide the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the legal and travel-related costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the legal and travel-related costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.

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-53/21, EVH v European Commission.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5335]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 697

[I.D. 091696A]


Atlantic Coast Weakfish Fisheries; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of additional public hearing; extension of comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: On February 21, 1997, NMFS announced three public hearings to 
receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the 
public regarding proposed regulations on the harvest and possession of 
weakfish in the exclusive economic zone of the Atlantic Ocean from 
Maine through Florida.
    Due to requests from the public, NMFS now announces one additional 
public hearing in New Bern, NC and extends the comment deadline.
    To accommodate people unable to attend a hearing or wishing to 
provide additional comments, NMFS also solicits written comments on the 
proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents 
(Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory 
Impact Review (DSEIS/RIR) must be received on or before April 1, 1997.
    The New Bern, NC hearing will be held on Thursday, March 27, 1997, 
from 7-9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Richard H. Schaefer, 
Chief, Staff Office of Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries 
(Fx2), National Marine Fisheries Service, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 
425, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Clearly mark the outside of the envelope 
``Atlantic Weakfish Comments.'' The hearing will be held at the 
following location:
    Sheraton Grand New Bern, 1 Bicentennial Park, New Bern, NC 28563.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Meyer/Paul Perra, 301-427-2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The hearing announcement was published on 
February 21, 1997, (62 FR 7994).
    A complete description of the measures, and the purpose and need 
for the proposed action, is contained in the proposed rule published 
February 14, 1997 (62 FR 6935), and is not repeated here. A copy of the 
proposed rule may be obtained by writing (see ADDRESSES) or calling the 
contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The purpose of this document is to alert the interested public of 
hearings and provide for public participation. These hearings are 
physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign 
language interpretation or other auxiliary aids for the New Bern, NC 
hearing should be directed to Thomas Meyer by March 17, 1997 (see 
ADDRESSES).

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851 note.

    Dated: February 27, 1997.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-5335 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
# C_2023045EN.01000902.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 November 2022 — Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

(Case C-711/22)

(2023/C 45/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Advance Pharma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

Question referred

In the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and (2) TEU, does a remedy available in certain legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, in the form of the possibility of seeking revision of proceedings which led to a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights finding a breach of the provisions of the Convention, constitute an essential element of the right to effective judicial protection in civil matters where the legal system of a Member State provides for another legal remedy for the purpose of protecting the judicial rights of a party to proceedings which have resulted in a final judgment?

---
Order entered June 15 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00943
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00944
- CR
CHARLES EVERAGE DOYA L, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 199
- 80146
- 2014 , 199
- 80147
- 2014



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On April 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeals; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel Mitchell Nolte; (3) counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) appellant’s brief will be filed by J une 21, 2015.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2015 . Because appellant has already been granted on thirty

- day extension of time to file the brief and the brief is now four months overdue, no further extensions will be granted.We D IRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL VACA PEREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 21-70878 

Agency No. A204-625-781 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Vaca Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-70878 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question 

of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that 

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and 

regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We 

deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Vaca Perez did not establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of 

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with 

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence 

supports the BIA’s determination that Vaca Perez otherwise failed to establish the 

harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected 

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if 

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show 

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”);

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 
3 21-70878 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Vaca Perez’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Vaca Perez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11171-11172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-8-29-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997 Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff 
sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 which tariff 
sheets are enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. The tariff 
sheets are proposed to be effective April 1, 1997.
    Transco states that the instant filing is submitted pursuant to 
Section 41 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transco's FERC Gas 
Tariff which provides that Transco will file to reflect net changes in 
the Transmission Electric Power (TEP) rates 30 days prior to each TEP 
Annual Period beginning April 1. Transco states that Attached in 
Appendix B are workpapers supporting the derivation of the revised TEP 
rates reflected on the tariff sheets included therein.
    Transco also states that the TEP rates are designed to recover 
Transco's transmission electric power costs for its electric compressor 
stations (Stations 100, 120, 145, and 205). The costs underlying the 
revised TEP rates consist of two components--the Estimated TEP Costs 
for the period April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998 plus the balance in 
the TEP Deferred Account including accumulated interest as of January 
31, 1997. Appendix C contains schedules detailing the Estimated TEP 
Costs for the period April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998 and Appendix 
D contains workpapers supporting the

[[Page 11172]]

calculation of the TEP Deferred Account.
    Transco states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to 
its affected customers, State Commissions, and other interested 
parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary
[FR Doc. 97-5934 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


SAJAN 2014 SHORT-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


 


		I.	PURPOSE, OVERVIEW AND PARTICIPATION



 


The Sajan 2014 Short-Term Incentive Plan
(“STIP”) is designed to motivate employees to achieve and exceed the Company’s performance goals as outlined
by management and the Board of Directors. Participants include all eligible employees, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer. The pool of funds for distribution under the STIP will be allocated to each employee
pursuant to such employee’s maximum bonus opportunity.


 


		II.	PLAN COMPONENTS AND PAYOUT



 


The STIP is based on the Company’s
2014 budget put forward by management and approved by the Board. The primary component of the STIP is the Company’s Adjusted
EBITDA, and specific targets and other metrics for payment under the STIP will be determined by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors. Awards under the STIP will be determined and paid following confirmation of the 2014 quarterly financial results.



 


		III.	OTHER CONSIDERATIONS



 


The STIP assumes normal and ongoing operations
of the Company and does not contemplate significant strategic changes in the business, such as an acquisition. The Compensation
Committee shall administer and interpret the STIP and may, in its sole discretion, amend the STIP or any target or metric in any
respect.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2023

No. 04-23-00055-CR

IN RE Rigoberto Gamboa MOLINA

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On January 30, 2023, relator filed a motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus. 

We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus. The stay imposed on 

January 13, 2023 is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on February 15, 2023.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of February, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11370CR, styled State of Texas v. Rigoberto Gamboa Molina, pending in 

the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.