alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-691.

No. 11-696.

No. 11-698.

#### Media General, Inc. *v.*Federal Communications Commission et al.; Tribune Co. et al. *v.*Federal Communications Commission et al.; and National Association of Broadcasters *v.*Federal Communications Commission et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 652 F. 3d 431.
# C_2023063EN.01002801.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/28

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2022 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-850/19, Greece v Commission

(Case C-797/22 P)

(2023/C 63/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Leftheriotou and A.-E. Vasilopoulou)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 October 2022 in Case T-850/19, (1) dismissing the action brought by the Hellenic Republic on 12 December 2019 seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/394 of 7 October 2019 concerning the measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees linked to the fires of 2007 (the present decision covers only the agricultural sector) (OJ 2020 L 76, p. 4), in order then to uphold that action and annul the Commission’s decision.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU and an insufficient and inadequate statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, is divided into two parts.

In the first part of the first ground of appeal, it is submitted that, by misinterpreting and misapplying Article 107(1) TFEU, the General Court found that agricultural undertakings in fire-affected areas which received loans guaranteed by the Greek State (and only those undertakings) obtained an economic advantage. Furthermore, it failed to give sufficient reasons for that finding.

In the second part of the first ground of appeal, it is submitted that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in finding that the measures at issue were selective.

The second ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of exceptional circumstances which render aid irrecoverable, in accordance with the general principles of proportionality and sound administration, and an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons.

---

(1)  ECLI:ECLI:EU:T:2022:638.

---
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

The Board of TrusteesInnSuites Hospitality Trust:

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statement (No. 333-46030) on Form S-8 ofInnSuites Hospitality Trust and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report datedApril 30, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of the Companyas of January 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-yearperiod ended January 31, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule,which report appears in the January 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of theCompany.

 
|              | /s/  KPMG LLP |
|-------------------|--------------------|
|              |               |
|              |               |
| Phoenix,  Arizona |               |
| April 30,  2003   |               |

 

 

----
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





I, James
F. Wirth, Chief Executive Officer of InnSuites Hospitality Trust (the
“Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1. The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31,
2009 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and





2. The
information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








Date:
      April 30, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      James F. WirthName:
      James F. WirthTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


               EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

------------------------------------------------------------     ---------------------
                                        Three Months Ended         Six Months Ended
                                            June 30,                  June 30,
(in thousands, except per share data)   1999          1998         1999        1998
------------------------------------------------------------     ---------------------
Basic:
------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>
Average shares outstanding              25,584       25,712        25,534      25,633
                                      =========    =========     =========   =========
Net Income                            $ 10,990     $  9,725      $ 21,315    $ 19,030
                                      =========    =========     =========   =========
Per Share Amount                      $   0.43     $   0.38      $   0.83    $   0.74
                                      =========    =========     =========   =========

Diluted:
--------

Average shares outstanding              25,584       25,712        25,534      25,633

Net effect of dilutive stock options
 based on the treasury stock method
 using the average market price or
 quarter end price, whichever is
 greater                                   654        1,054           904       1,113
                                      ---------    ---------     ---------   ---------
         Total Shares Outstanding       26,238       26,766        26,438      26,746
                                      =========    =========     =========   =========
Net Income                            $ 10,990     $  9,725      $ 21,315    $ 19,030
                                      =========    =========     =========   =========
Per Share Amount                      $   0.42     $   0.36      $   0.81    $   0.71
                                      ---------    ---------     ---------   ---------
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2; 5:10-cv-00362-FL)

Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Robert Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion and the district court’s order denying an 

extension of time to note an appeal. We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days 

after the entry of a district court’s final judgment or order, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order on Williams’s § 2255 motion 

was entered on March 29, 2011. Williams’s motion for an 

extension of time was filed on August 2, 2011.*

 The district 

court’s order denying the motion was entered on August 18, 2011. 

Williams filed a notice of appeal from that order on June 8, 

2012. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal

 * This is the postmark date on the envelope in which the 

motion was mailed to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a prisoner’s notice of 

appeal is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison 

authorities for mailing to the court).
3

from either order and failed to obtain an extension or reopening 

of either appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 21**

 

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

1.  RRF Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership.

 

2.  Yuma Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limitedpartnership.

 

3.  Northern Phoenix Investment Limited Partnership, an Arizonalimited partnership.

 

4.  Tucson Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limitedpartnership.

 

5.  Baseline Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limitedpartnership.

 

6.  Ontario Hospitality Properties Limited Partnership, an Arizonalimited partnership.

 

7.  Tucson St. Mary’s Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limitedliability company.

 

8.  Buena Park Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limited liabilitycompany.

 

9.  Albuquerque Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limited liabilitycompany.

 

10. InnSuites Hotels, Inc., aNevada corporation.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 970 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 970

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for the 
   removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National 
                  Battlefield, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2019

    Mr. Brown of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Trone, and Mr. Raskin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for the 
   removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National 
                  Battlefield, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Robert E. Lee Statue Removal Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL PLAN FOR MONUMENT.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall develop a plan for the removal of 
the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National Battlefield.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on 
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and make publicly 
available, a report describing the plan required under section 2 and a 
timeline for the removal of the monument in accordance with that plan.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.3



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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Metrologic Instruments, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin J. Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    KEVIN J. BRATTON                                    
|                                                           
|Kevin J. Bratton Chief Financial Officer September 23, 2003
No. 12-24.

#### Campbell, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Booth *v.*Washington Department of Social and Health Services et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 the Quarterly Report of Bitstream Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                            |  |             
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|SIGNATURE           |  | TITLE                                      |  | DATE        
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  | President and Chief Executive Officer      |  | May 13, 2005
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |                                           
|                    |  |                                           
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | May 13, 2005
|James P. Dore       |  |                                           



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under
that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000819577
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         905,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               916,371
<PP&E>                                      15,878,577
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,345,534)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,449,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          393,022
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,056,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,449,414
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               462,934
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                271,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            271,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   271,604
<EPS-BASIC>                                      12.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.42



</TABLE>
# hr2454nibiv.0729a

Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary

Energy Consumption by Sector and Source

Energy Prices by Sector and Source

Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption

Commercial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption

Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption

Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption

Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions

Electricity Generating Capacity

Electricity Trade

Liquid Fuels Supply and Disposition

Petroleum Product Prices

Natural Gas Supply, Disposition, and Prices

Oil and Gas Supply

Coal Supply, Disposition, and Prices

Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation

Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Source

Macroeconomic Indicators

Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by End Use

Renewable Energy Consumption by Sector and Source 1/

Greenhouse Gas Compliance Results
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 12, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00303

- CV

Francine Lee Lankford and Frank T. Vickers , Appellant s

v.

Salvador Abreo and Frank J. Dzienowski, Jr , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 423RD DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, THEOFANIS, AND JONES AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

–

OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on May 13, 2022 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the portion of the order dismissing Vickers ’s claim a gainst Dzienowski. Therefor e, t he Court

affirm s that portion of the trial court ’s interlocutory order. The Court further holds that there

was reversi ble error in the portion of the o rder granting Abreo ’ s plea to the jurisdiction.

Therefore the Court reverses the portion of the tria l c o urt’s i nterlocutory order dismissing

Lankford ’s claims again s t Abreo and remand s the case against him to the trial court for further

proceedi ngs. Vickers and Abre o shall each bear one

- half of the costs of appe al

, both in this

Court and in the court be low.
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002






In
connection with the quarterly report of ILX Resorts Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the nine months ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I (We),
Joseph P. Martori, Chief Executive Officer, and Margaret M. Eardley, Chief
Financial 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.






/s/ Joseph P.
Martori


Joseph P.
Martori


Chief
Executive Officer


November
9, 2009








/s/ Margaret M.
Eardley


Margaret
M. Eardley


Chief
Financial Officer


November
9, 2009
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20921

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO PENAFIEL-RIVAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-91-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Francisco Penafiel-Rivas (Rivas) appeals the

46-month sentence imposed by the district court following the

acceptance of his guilty plea for various heroin-related

offenses. Rivas argues that the district court clearly erred in

not finding that he was a minor participant in the drug

conspiracy and reducing his offense level accordingly under
No. 96-20921

- 2 -

§ 3B1.2 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Rivas was

responsible for a large quantity of heroin, 579.9 grams, seized

from his person, and because he was held responsible for only the

amount of drugs that he actually possessed, § 3B1.2 does not

require a reduction in his base offense level even though his

activity in the overall drug conspiracy may have been minor. See

United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.

1990). Further, Rivas was sentenced only for the drugs he

actually carried and not those which might be attributed to a

larger conspiracy. See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 181

(5th Cir.) cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997).

 AFFIRMED.