alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

COUNTY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

Appellant,

v.

MONIQUE AGUILAR,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00082

- CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016

- DCV

- 2806)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in that

part of the judgment den ying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction challenging A ppellee’s claims

for sex discrimination based on disparate treatment , insofar as that cla im is based on disparate

treatment as between Appellee and comparators A r enas or Montes, and in that part of the judgment

den ying Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction challenging A ppellee’s claim for retaliation for

engaging in opposition to disparate trea tment . We therefore reverse those parts of the trial court’s

judgment and dismiss th ose claim s for lack of jurisdiction , in accordance with the opinion of this

Court

. T he remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

We further order t hat Appellant and its sureties, if any, and Appellee each pay one

- half

(1/2) the appellate costs , for which let execution issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.5. This decision

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 202 0.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
No. 12-5134.

#### Lopez *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### RONALD SINGLETON *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 33849)

Beach, Bear and Sheldon, Js.

Submitted on briefs September 13

officially released October 1, 2013

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24463-24464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10644]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 20, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

[[Page 24464]]

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-10644 Filed 4-28-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
# C_2023179EN.01005001.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 March 2023 — Cogebi and Cogebi v Council

(Case T-782/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Prohibition on purchasing, importing or transferring, directly or indirectly, goods which generate significant revenues for Russia into the Union - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 179/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cogebi (Beersel, Belgium), Cogebi, a.s. (Tábor, Czech Republic) (represented by: H. over de Linden, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Nadbath, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek suspension of the operation of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259 I, p. 3), in so far as it amends Annex XXI to Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), by inserting CN code 6814 into the list of goods and technology referred to in Article 3i of Regulation No 833/2014.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 921 

To establish the policy of the United States regarding the no-first-use of 

nuclear weapons. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. SMITH of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To establish the policy of the United States regarding the 

no-first-use of nuclear weapons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. POLICY ON NO-FIRST-USE OF NUCLEAR WEAP4 ONS. 

5 It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear 

6 weapons first. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2023127EN.01003501.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-8/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL - Earlier national figurative mark carl touch - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 127/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2021 (Case R 2561/2018-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              11,395
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     4,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         33,770
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              37,375
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                37,219
<LOANS>                                             91,545
<ALLOWANCE>                                          1,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     147,583
<DEPOSITS>                                         130,257
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  3,892
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            14,267
<OTHER-SE>                                           (833)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     147,583
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      2,178
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                      572
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                         7
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     2,757
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   1,090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      65
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                1,602
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           21
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      1,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        526
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                             320
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           320
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        4.63
<LOANS-NON>                                            324
<LOANS-PAST>                                           115
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      1,044
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     1,464
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                           87
<RECOVERIES>                                             8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    1,406
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 1,406
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              1,391



</TABLE>
26.11.19.10 

COMAR 26.11.19.10 Amendments Merged with Unchanged Text

.10 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing. 

A. Definitions. In this regulation, the following terms have the meanings indicated: 

(1) "Flexography" means to use an elastomeric cylinder or an elastomeric surface of revolution with raised 

areas to transfer ink as a method of printing. 

(2) "Packaging rotogravure" means to use a cylinder or other surface of revolution with contoured recesses 

on the surface to transfer ink as a method of printing on a substrate that subsequent operations turn into a 

container or into labels for objects. 

(3) "Publication rotogravure" means to use a cylinder or other surface of revolution with contoured recesses 

on the surface to transfer ink as a method of printing on a substrate that subsequent operations turn into 

books, magazines, newsletters, and similar products. 

B. Applicability and Exemptions. 

(1) A person subject to this regulation who applies a clear protective coating over the printed matter shall 

include emissions from the clear coating when determining compliance with the requirements of this 

regulation. 

(2) The provisions of this regulation do not apply to printing on fabric, metal, plastic, or to flexible package 

printing subject to COMAR 26.11.19.10-1. 

C. Requirements for Sheet-Fed or Web-Fed Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure, and Publication 

Rotogravure Printing. A person who owns or operates a printing press that uses flexographic, packaging 

rotogravure, or publication rotogravure methods and is a major stationary source as defined in Regulation 

.01B(4) of this chapter, shall: 

(1) Reduce emissions by using water-based inks that contain less than 25 percent VOC by volume of the 

volatile portion of the ink, or high solids inks that contain not less than 60 percent by weight nonvolatiles; 

or 

(2) If compliance with the requirements of § C(1) of this regulation cannot be achieved, reduce the VOC 

content of each ink, or reduce the average VOC content of inks used at each press, as follows: 

(a) 60 percent reduction for flexographic presses, 

(b) 65 percent reduction for packaging rotogravure presses, and 

(c) 75 percent reduction for publication rotogravure presses.
# C_2023045EN.01001301.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 November 2022 — criminal proceedings

(Case C-722/22)

(2023/C 45/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2 of Framework Decision 2005/212, (1) read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 1 thereof, to interpret a national law as meaning that a heavy goods vehicle (tractor unit and trailer) which members of an organised crime group used for the holding and transport of large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without tax markings should not be confiscated as an instrumentality?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

---
Exhibit 99

# 

Sun International

April 1, 2002
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20549
Ladies and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended, we have received representations
from Arthur Andersen LLP, our independent public accountants that (i) this audit
was subject to Arthur Andersen LLPs quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, and (ii)
that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on
the audit and national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Arthur Andersen LLP was not relevant to this audit.

| |  |  | Very truly yours,                     |                                   
| |  |  | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------
| |  |  | SUN INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA, INC. |                                   
| |  |  | By:                                   | /s/John R. Allison                
| |  |  | Name:                                 | John R. Allison                   
| |  |  | Title:                                | Executive Vice President - Finance
| |  |  |                                       | Chief Financial Officer
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1159 

Calling upon all candidates for Federal office to respect the American tradition of the peaceful transfer of power and reject any efforts to prevent 

people from exercising their right to vote. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. WELCH, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

MEEKS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. BASS, Mr. RUSH, Ms. 

JUDY CHU of California, and Ms. SPEIER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Calling upon all candidates for Federal office to respect 

the American tradition of the peaceful transfer of power 

and reject any efforts to prevent people from exercising 

their right to vote. 

Whereas the 15th Amendment guarantees the right to vote 

shall not be denied on account of race or color; 

Whereas the 19th Amendment guarantees the right to vote 

shall not be denied on account of sex; 

Whereas, in 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States 

held that ‘‘The right to vote freely for the candidate of 

one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1159 IH 

any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.’’; 

Whereas the 20th Amendment states that the term of the 

President ends at noon on the 20th day of January; 

Whereas since George Washington left office in 1797, every 

transfer between Presidential administrations has been 

peaceful; 

Whereas the 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 elections featured 

the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college, 

but still resulted in a peaceful transfer of power; 

Whereas, on September 23, 2020, in response to the question 

‘‘Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here, 

today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?’’ President Trump responded ‘‘Well, we’re going to 

have to see what happens. You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots 

are a disaster.’’; and 

Whereas when given the opportunity to clarify his statement, 

President Trump stated that ‘‘We want to have—get rid 

of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans—we’ll have a 

very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll 

be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You 

know it.’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls upon all candidates for Federal office 

3 to respect the American tradition of the peaceful 

4 transfer of power; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1159 IH 

1 (2) firmly rejects any effort to ‘‘get rid of the 

2 ballots’’ or in any way prevent people from exer3 cising their right to vote. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### COM. v. PHILLIPS, K.

3133 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-51-CR-0010940-2013 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  P HIL G ANEZER and L YNETTE S OHL , No. 09-55818 on their own behalf and on behalf D.C. No. of all others similarly situated; et 2:08-cv-08666- al., GAF-RC

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

#  Central District of v. California, D IRECTBUY , I NC ., an Indiana Los Angeles Corporation, ORDER

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Filed June 25, 2009

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and

N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The judgment of the district court is vacated. This matteris remanded to the district court with instructions to stay proceedings pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Hertz Corp. v. Friend , No. 08-16963, 2008 WL 4750198 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2008), cert. granted , 2009 WL 559348 (U.S. June 8, 2009) (No. 08-1107). The appeal is removed from the July 10, 2009, Pasadena calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8191PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
No. 11-10910.

#### Bak *v.*Donahoe, Postmaster General, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.1

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
    
      


  

  
    THE 
      SECURITIES  EVIDENCED  BY  THIS  CERTIFICATE  ARE RESTRICTED AS TO TRANSFER FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED
      OF WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DEPARTMENT.

    

    

    THE 


        SHARES  OF  THE  COMPANY  REPRESENTED  IN  THIS.CERTIFICATE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF1933. SUCH SHARES MAY NOT BE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED IN THE ABSENCE  OF  SUCH  REGISTRATION  OR  ANY 
        EXEMPTION THERE FROM UNDER SAID ACT, SUPPORTED BY AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED AND THAT SUCH EXEMPTION IS APPLICABLE.
Exhibit 10.39


  As of February 7, 1995

       I hereby  irrevocably  surrender the  options granted  by
  that   Stock  Option   Agreement  between   Reading  &   Bates
  Corporation  and the  undersigned  dated October  7, 1993  and
  (effective as of the 14th  day of September, 1993), contingent
  upon the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan being approved by the
  Company's stockholders (in accordance  with SEC Rule 16b-3) at
  the Annual  Meeting of Stockholders scheduled for May 2, 1995,
  or any adjournment thereof.   If that plan is not  so approved
  by stockholders, this surrender shall be deemed void ab initio
  and of no further legal effect.

                                                        
                           S.A. Webster
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7917

ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS

MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of

South Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-1334-10-21BD)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Leon

Morrison, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his

motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. We also find

no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Appellant's Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Burgess v. Evatt, No. CA-94-1334-10-21BD

(D.S.C. Aug. 7, 1995; Sept. 15, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13400-13401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7020]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and Industrial 
Innovation; Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and 
Industrial Innovation--(1194)
    Date and Time: April 8-9, 1997; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Rooms 365 and 530, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Tony Centodocati, SBIR Program Manager, Ritchie 
Coryell, SBIR Program Manager, Darryl Gorman, SBIR Program Manager, 
and Joseph Hennessey, SBIR Program Manager, Small Business 
Innovation Research Program, (703) 306-1390, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF's SBIR Program.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate SBIR Phase II proposals as part 
of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly disclosed.


[[Page 13401]]


    Dated: March 17, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-7020 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M