alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013207EN.01005702.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/57

---

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency

(Case F-29/13)

2013/C 207/95

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 30 August 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract, to end his employment relationship on 30 April 2013 and to require him to take leave; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 30 August 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract, to end his employment relationship on 30 April 2013 and to require him to take leave;

| — | Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 rejecting his request for a renewal of his contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 rejecting his request for a renewal of his contract;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm.

---
No. 10-6560.

#### Olga Echerivel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 991, 131 S. Ct. 438,

178 L. Ed. 2d 339,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8220.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 628.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2496 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2496

 To amend the Federal Power Act to modify an exemption relating to the 
     territory for the sale of electric power of certain electric 
             transmission systems, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 4 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Power Act to modify an exemption relating to the 
     territory for the sale of electric power of certain electric 
             transmission systems, 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. MODIFICATION OF EXEMPTION.

    Section 212(j) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(j)) is 
amended by striking out ``October 1, 1991'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``December 31, 1993''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anthony Curtis, Jr, Appellant, v Fishkill Allsport Fitness & Racquetball Club, Inc., Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 411]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Tolbert, J.), dated March 14, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude him from introducing testimony of a certain nonparty witness at trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from is an evidentiary ruling. Such a ruling, even when made “in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion, which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” *(Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc.,*283 AD2d 537 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50987

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL HERNANDEZ-GALLARDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:05-CR-821-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel HernandezGallardo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11028

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN DEMOND MEACHEM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-26-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Demond 

Meachem has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Meachem 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 appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11028 Document: 00513241771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-11028

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-11028 Document: 00513241771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
EPA and Franklin Fueling Meeting April 25, 2013 Attendees EPA

– Li nda Gerber, Paul Miller, Erin Knighton, L iz McDermott, Cho Yi Kwan, Andrea Barbery Franklin Fueling

– Jay

Walsh, Brooke Randall EPA and Franklin Fueling met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations. The discussion included secondary containment, testing secondary containment, biofuels and standards.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 60846 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Michael James Barnes,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 38

- 1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Michael James Barnes, federal prisoner # 17118

- 043, was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). He now appeals

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2020
L yle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60846 Document: 00515687819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020No. 20

- 60846

2 the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion to reduce his sentence in which he sought compassionate release based upon the COVID

- 19 pandemic and his underlying medical condition s

. The district court denied the motion after it found that even if Barnes had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release, this relief was not warranted

. We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an abuse of disc retion

. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) . An abuse of discretion is shown if the district court “bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted)

. Barnes arg ues that the district court erred in denying relief based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) by finding that he would be a danger to society if released . However, the court did not explicitly mention § 3553(a)(2)(C) ; rather, the court referenced the “§3582(c) fact ors” and U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .13(2) , p.s. To the extent that the district court’s rationale implicate d the § 3553(a) factors, Barnes fails to show that t he district court abuse d its discretion by giving greater weight to t he seriousness of Barnes’s criminal history , his prison disciplinary record , the amount of time served on his sentence, the need to protect the community, and the need for just punishment than to Barnes’s post

- sentencing rehabilitation, his medical issues, the impact of the pandemic at USP Lewisburg, and the response to the pandemic by the Bureau of Prisons

. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

- 94. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 20-60846 Document: 00515687819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
# Norfolk’s Johnson receives Global Distribution Excellence: Supervisory Systems Analyst Civilian of the Year 

/ Published Aug. 26, 2015
NORFOLK, Virginia, 
Sebrena Johnson, systems analyst supervisor at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Va., has been awarded the Global Distribution Excellence: Supervisory Systems Analyst of the Year award for her work in implementing the Distribution Standard System at two of Norfolk’s satellite locations - New London, Conn., and Cheatham Annex, Va.

Johnson worked closely with DLA Distribution headquarters to plan and strategize the elements of implementation of DSS at each site, and ensured that all parties were provided up-to-the-minute information on progress and any required changes.  “Ms. Johnson’s efforts resulted in the flawless implementation of DSS at the two sites, which ensured our employees can best support our customers,” said Navy Capt. Harry Thetford, the distribution center’s commander.  “These new tools are critical for the customer’s visibility of material and to help our Fleet customers make strategic decisions on material management.”

As the point of contact for all DSS access requirements for Norfolk and its regional sites, Johnson is the go-to person for access issues for over 600 employees.  

Johnson was responsible for assisting in gathering metrics and production reports for all activities under DLA Distribution Norfolk, and she worked directly with the deputy commander to answer all data calls.  “Ms. Johnson quite literally performs the duties of two or more personnel daily, and does so with confidence and a positive attitude for all to see,” said Thetford.
No. 10-6740.

#### James T. McCormick, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 545,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8451.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. 10-6512.

#### Patricia Ann Brown, Petitioner v. Mississippi.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 533,

178 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8510.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.

Same case below, 37 So. 3d 1205.
# C_2014329EN.01001301.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

---

Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

(Case T-416/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Competition - Operation of video lottery terminals - Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence - Decision rejecting a complaint - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 329/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valetta, Malta) and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R.A. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Striani, acting as Agents, subsequently by F. Ronkes Agerbeek)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013 by which it informed the applicants of its decision to reject their complaint and to close the file regarding Case COMP/39.981 — Stanleybet Group 2/OPAP.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd shall bear their own costs and pay those borne by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd shall bear their own costs and pay those borne by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
Exhibit        13.2

 

**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.        (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the        undersigned, Joseph Gaspar, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting        Officer) of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to        sec. 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, as amended;        and

         

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

         

         

Date: May        28, 2008

 

 

|   | By:    | /s/ Joseph Gaspar                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph Gaspar                                |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
2017-0772.

#### State ex rel. Stairhime v. Schmenk.

In Procedendo. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Paul John Ferraro, Appellant, v Carmen Farina et al., Respondents.

[69 NYS3d 266]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered July 29, 2016, dismissing the proceeding, and bringing up for review a decision and order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, seeking to vacate the opinion and award of respondents, dated August 3, 2015, terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Education Law § 3020-a (5) provides that upon judicial review an arbitration award shall be vacated only upon a find*550ing of one or more of the grounds cited at CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (misconduct in procuring an award; arbitrator bias; arbitrator exceeding its power; procedural defects). Where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration “judicial scrutiny is stricter than that for a determination [made in a] voluntary arbitration . . . [and] the determination must be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78. The party challenging [the] determination has the burden of showing its invalidity” *(Matter of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*104 AD3d 415, 418-419 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).

The court properly upheld the hearing officer’s determination which was amply supported by the record. Petitioner admitted to specifications 5 through 8. With respect to other specifications upheld, the school administrators cited numerous examples of petitioner’s pedagogical deficiencies which were noted in many formal and informal observations, and the extensive unsuccessful efforts to assist him to improve. Petitioner’s assessment of the quality of his lessons was insufficient to overcome this testimony and the documentation of his deficiencies *(see Matter of Benjamin v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*105 AD3d 677, 678 [1st Dept 2013]).

The standard for reviewing a penalty imposed after a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a is whether the punishment of dismissal was so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Asch*at 421). Termination of petitioner’s employment does not shock the conscience in that the attempts to improve his performance, which extended over a two to three year period, were largely unsuccessful. Moreover, his testimony demonstrated that he did not believe that his pedagogical technique was deficient *(see Matter of Ajeleye v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*112 AD3d 425, 425-426 [1st Dept 2013]).

The record does not include evidence that respondents discriminated against petitioner or retaliated against him when he complained, and he admitted that his requests for accommodations were largely granted.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certifications




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:




To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  November 9, 2010
/s/ John Williams

JOHN WILLIAMS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

(Principal Executive Officer)Date:  November 9, 2010
/s/ John D. GlassgowJOHN D. GLASSGOW

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE BALANCE SHEET
AT DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,048
<INVENTORY>                                      3,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,988
<PP&E>                                         793,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                 404,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 472,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,000
<BONDS>                                        101,449
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,442
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   472,826
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,188
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,188
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-11436.

#### Darrell L. Padgett, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 198,

178 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6871.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 806.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desiree M. Dietz, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 904]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.), imposed April 25, 2016, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]; *People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 339-342 [2015]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256; *People v Kilpatrick,*148 AD3d 1183 [2017]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.