alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022463EN.01005302.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 October 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission

(Case T-416/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 463/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH (Graz, Austria), and the 14 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: W. Rehmann and A. Knierim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek the suspension of operation of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3591 final of 24 May 2022 concerning, in the framework of Article 107p of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘hydroxyethyl starch (HES), solutions for infusion’ following an assessment of a post authorisation safety study.

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.

---
#### Copp v. State

107,192

10/01/13

Denied

Unpublished
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1553

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee

v.

Shawn Demar Johnson

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa

____________

Submitted: September 18, 2012

 Filed: October 30, 2012

[Published] 

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Johnson appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for a

1

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.
After Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base (crack) with the

intent to distribute it, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the district court sentenced him to

30 months' imprisonment in accordance with a plea agreement that Mr. Johnson had

entered into under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Mr. Johnson later moved for a

sentence reduction based on retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

See U.S.S.G., app. C, amend. 750. To be eligible for a reduction, Mr. Johnson had

to have been sentenced "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He maintainsthat

his sentence was "based on a sentencing range" because his plea agreement statesthat

his 30-month sentence "adequately takes into account all of the factors to be

considered under the advisory sentencing guidelines that apply to this offense."

We agree with the district court that this language does not make Mr. Johnson

eligible for a reduction. According to Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in

Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), the principles of which supply the

rule of decision in this case, see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977),

a sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) is "based on" the Guidelines if the plea agreement

"expressly uses a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged offense to

establish the term of imprisonment," Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2695 (Sotomayor, J.,

concurring). But here, though the Guidelines were adverted to generally, there is no

express connection between them and Mr. Johnson's sentence: there was no

intimation that the agreed-upon " 'sentence [was] determined pursuant to the

Sentencing Guidelines.' " Cf. id. at 2699 (quoting the plea agreement in Freeman). 

The agreement does not "make clear that the basis for the specified term is a

Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offense to which [Mr. Johnson] pleaded

guilty," since a Guidelines "sentencing range is [not] evident from the agreement

itself." Id. at 2697. We thus cannot say that the Guidelines "range serves as the basis

or foundation for the term of imprisonment." Id. at 2695.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
No. 12-5605.

#### George *v.*Maine.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                     13,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,500
<PP&E>                                       2,574,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,664,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,120,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          179,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          111,100
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           900
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,120,000
<SALES>                                        582,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,300
<CGS>                                          493,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  493,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (6,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Henry L. NordhoffHenry L. NordhoffChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### State v. Ellie

110,454

02/18/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     3rd Quarter 1999 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000820083
<NAME>                   TCC Equipment Income Fund
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         783
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         19,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          404
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,989
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,423
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                223
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   223
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
July 9 , 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sent to web site: http://www.regulations.gov/

Re: Exemption No. 5533 , Docket FAA

- 2000

- 7980

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14CFR § 11.61, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) dba Airlines for America , on behalf of its member

airlines 1 petitions the Administrator for an extension of Exemption No. 5533J

. This exemption is schedu led to expire on October 31, 2014

.

Exemption 5533J provides relief from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to allow the member

airlines of the Air lines for Amer ica and other similarly situated Part 121 air carriers to permit qualified flight attendants not required by §121.391(c) to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants during aircraft movement on

the surface.

This request does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the current exemption. The conditions and circumstances, with regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the original partial grant of exemption, continue to

Operator Members : Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air , Delta Air Lines, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, and US Airways

Associate Members : Air Canada.Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980

- Exemption No. 5533

July 9 , 2014 Page 2

exist. This exemption has been in use for thirteen years with no known compromise of safety.

Furthermore, the renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. This petition does not seek to establish a precedent, but merely would continue an accepted and

esta blished practice. Accordingly, A irlines for A merica requests that publication and comment period be waived. (14 CFR §11.87).

A summary of this partition as required by 14 CFR §11.81 is attached.

If any further information or discussion is required, pleas e call me at (202) 626 401 1

.

Respectfully resubmitted by:

Mark J. Millam Managing Director, Safety 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707 (202) 626

- 4011

mmillam @airlines.org

AttachmentAttachment

Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980 July 9 , 2014

SUMMARY OF A4A PETITION

Petitioner: Air Transport Association of America (ATA) dba

Airlines for America

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR § 121.311(b)

Description of Relief So ught: Renew Exemption No. 5533J with no changes to the existing terms except t o extend its termination date. Exemption 5533K provides relief from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, §121.311(b), to the extent necessary to permit non

- required flight attendants to perform safety

- relate d duties during

aircraft surface movement.
No. 12-5897.

#### Schwartz *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         138,312
<SECURITIES>                                    25,914
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               291,395
<PP&E>                                         104,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 443,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           251
<OTHER-SE>                                     267,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   443,964
<SALES>                                        118,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,109
<CGS>                                           50,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,472)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,466
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,185
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,281
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1




                              NEW YORK BANCORP INC.
                            241-02 Northern Boulevard
                           Douglaston, New York 11362


                                    Form 10-Q
                                December 31, 1996


Exhibit 11.  Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                 December 31,
                                                             ---------------------
                                                               1996       1995(1)
                                                             ---------  ----------
                                                             (In Thousands, except
                                                              per share amounts)

<S>                                                          <C>       <C>    
Net income.............................................      $10,264   $ 7,828
                                                             =======   =======

Weighted average common shares outstanding.............       16,623    17,910

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
 effect of stock options...............................          616       420
                                                             -------   -------

Total weighted average common shares and
 equivalents outstanding...............................       17,239    18,330
                                                             =======   =======

Primary earnings per share.............................        $ .60    $  .43
                                                               =====    ======

Total weighted average common shares and
 equivalents outstanding...............................       17,239    18,330

Additional  dilutive  shares using  ending  
 period  market value versus  average
 market value for the period when utilizing the
 treasury stock method regarding stock options.........           76        78
                                                             -------   -------

Total shares for fully diluted earnings per share......       17,315    18,408
                                                             =======   =======

Fully diluted earnings per share.......................        $ .59    $  .43
                                                               =====    ======

----------------
(1)   Share and per share information have been restated to fully reflect the 
      3-for-2 stock split effective January 23, 1997.


</TABLE>
# Table 2.3
different from those raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS

34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).

Appellant claimed that his procedural defects could be explained by a mental relapse that occurred in May 2003 and lasted until April 2012. Appellant claimed that he was not capable of understanding post-conviction procedures during this time period. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause. Appellant litigated a motion for a new trial, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus during this time period. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the claims in the instant petition were not reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). To the extent that appellant claimed that he was actually innocent and that this should overcome his procedural defects, appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see

2 Harris v. State, Docket No. 53196 (Order of Affirmance, October 21, 2009). Appellant also litigated a motion for a new trial and a motion to withdraw guilty plea. Harris v. State, Docket No. 50285 (Order of Affirmance, April 25, 2008).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2Hardesty

Parraguirre 

# 0 19 A Cherry also Pellearini v. State. 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Sammy Marvin Harris Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3 We deny the proper person motion to stay this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 150 

Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Elaine massacre. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself, Mr. HILL of Arkansas, Mr. WOMACK, and Mr. 

WESTERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Elaine 

massacre. 

Whereas between September 30 and October 1, 1919, an unknown number of African Americans were murdered in a 

racially motivated riot; 

Whereas the violence erupted when the unionization of sharecroppers was falsely portrayed as a Black insurrection 

against White landowners; 

Whereas estimates range between 100 to 240 victims, making 

the massacre one of the worst instances of mass racial 

violence in United States history; 

Whereas official investigations were only made into the 

deaths of 5 White people who were also killed in the violence; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 150 IH 

Whereas those investigations resulted in the prosecution of 

122 African Americans; and 

Whereas subsequent litigation resulted in the historic United 

States Supreme Court decision of Moore et al. v. Dempsey in 1923, the first Supreme Court case regarding the 

treatment of African Americans in State criminal justice 

systems, setting a precedent for future review of State 

criminal convictions: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors the lives and legacies of the un3 known number of African Americans who were mur4 dered in Phillips County, Arkansas, 100 years ago; 

5 (2) expresses its deepest sympathies to the fam6 ilies of the victims; and 

7 (3) recognizes the role the massacre played in 

8 strengthening United States citizens’ due process 

9 rights through Moore v. Dempsey, which set a prece10 dent for the Supreme Court’s subsequent review of 

11 State criminal trials and their compliance with the 

12 Bill of Rights. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
1

LEVIN, NANCY

From: Ruiz, Gabe@ARB <gabe.ruiz@arb.ca.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:00 PM

To: LEVIN, NANCY

Subject: FW: SJV Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without Rule 4570

Nancy, 

I meant to send this to you. 

--Gabe 

From: Ruiz, Gabe@ARB 

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 4:58 PM 

To: Ruiz, Gabe@ARB 

Cc: Biland, Larry (Biland.Larry@epa.gov); Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov

Subject: SJV Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without Rule 4570 

Nancy et. al., 

The table below shows the ammonia emission projections for the livestock categories in the San Joaquin Valley with and 

without the emission reductions from District Rule 4570, as calculated from the 2012 PM2.5 SIP inventory tool. 

SJV Livestock Waste Ammonia Emissions (tons/day) 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 SIP Inventory, NorCal V. 1.03 

SOURCE CATEGORY 2011 

Emissions

2012 Emissions

Without

Rule 

With 

Rule 

Dairy Cattle 214.8 221.9 164.9

Range Cattle 20.3 20.3 20.3

Feedlot Cattle 39.8 39.8 29.5

Poultry, Broilers 5.6 5.6 5.6

Poultry, Layers 2.9 2.9 2.3

Poultry, Turkeys 19.4 19.4 16.3

Swine 9.0 9.0 7.1

Sheep 3.1 3.1 3.1

Horses 1.3 1.3 1.3

Goats And Others 0.6 0.6 0.6

TOTAL 316.8 323.8 250.9

Please note that the earlier inventory for the District’s 2008 PM2.5 had a higher baseline estimate of 381 tons/day in 

2012, and if you were to apply the emission reduction factors from the rule, the 2012 emissions with rule would have 

been 291 tons/day. I’m pointing this out because I think it’ll be critical that you use the same baseline inventory in your 

analysis as the District did. Let me know if you have any other questions. 

--Gabe 
2

From: Ruiz, Gabe@ARB 

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:02 AM 

To: LEVIN, NANCY (Levin.Nancy@epa.gov) 

Subject: SJV Rule 4570 Control Profile 

Nancy, 

Per our phone conversation, here’s the San Joaquin Valley control profile for District Rule 4570. Let me know if you have 

any questions or need any additional information. 

Gabe Ruiz, Manager 

Emissions Inventory Forecasting & Special Projects Section 

California Air Resources Board 

916-322-7673