alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016016EN.01000701.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility - Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State - Approval of that State - Extension of a rail freight corridor - Legal basis - Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU))

(2016/C 016/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 15.10

Avinash Bisnath

Director

For

Kai Batla
Mineral Industry Consultants

26 Republic Road, Kai Batla House

Bordeaux, South Africa

CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, Avinash Bisnath, consent to the public filing of the
technical report titled NI43-101 Technical Report on the Boikgantsho Deposit, Limpopo Province South Africa.

I also consent to any extracts
from or a summary of the Technical Report in the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (the MD&A) for
the year ended December 31, 2011 of Anooraq Resources Corporation.

I certify that I have read the annual report on Form 20-F and the
MD&A being filed by Anooraq Resources Corporation and that it fairly and accurately represents the information in the sections of the technical report for which I am responsible.

DATED the 22 day of March, 2012.



|                   
|-------------------
|/s/ Avinash Bisnath
|Avinash Bisnath
# C_2014395EN.01006502.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/65

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — Wahlström v Frontex

(Case F-117/13) (1)

((Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Renewal procedure - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Infringement - Influence on the content of the decision))

(2014/C 395/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff after the annulment, by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-87/11, of the first decision of non-renewal of his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, of 19 February 2013, not to renew Mr Wahlström’s contract as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, of 19 February 2013, not to renew Mr Wahlström’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay Mr Wahlström’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay Mr Wahlström’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1/2/2014, p. 23.

---
# C_2014052EN.01003701.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/37

---

Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-385/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 52/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 in Case F-17/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.

1

---
January 27, 2016

Dear Mr. Herzog:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA–2015–5610). This information is necessa ry for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 2/10/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/S/ Program Analyst
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2073 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2073

   To designate the United States courthouse that is scheduled to be 
constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, as the ``Warren B. Rudman United 
              States Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 4 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

 Mr. Smith (for himself and Mr. Gregg) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States courthouse that is scheduled to be 
constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, as the ``Warren B. Rudman United 
              States Courthouse'', 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. DESIGNATION OF WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse that (as of the date of enactment of 
this Act) is scheduled to be constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Warren B. Rudman United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, or other 
paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Warren B. Rudman United 
States Courthouse''.

                                 <all>
```
161 A.3d 760

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-MOVANT, v. WILLIAM BURKERT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

March 9, 2017

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a supplemental appellant’s brief as within time is granted. Respondent shall serve and file supplemental brief on or before April 24, 2017.
No. 10-6538.

#### Larry Moon, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 534,

178 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8600.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 563.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code(18 U.S.C. §1350), Dan W. Denney Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Genitope Corporation (the“Company”), and John M. Vuko, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:**1.** The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the periodended December 31, 2005, to which this Certification isattached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Exchange Act, and **2.** The information contained in the Annual Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as ofthe 31stday of March, 2006.   /s/ DAN W. DENNEY JR. /s/ JOHN M. VUKO      Dan W. Denney Jr. John M. VukoChief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer     “This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof Genitope Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.”
Exhibit 11.1



               ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES
                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSSES) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               2000          1999            1998
                                               ----          ----            ----
<S>                                       <C>            <C>            <C>
BASIC
   Weighted average number of shares
      outstanding                           14,327,869     13,019,657     11,116,619


   Net loss                               $(16,656,128)  $(13,777,589)  $(16,664,999)

BASIC NET LOSS PER SHARE                  $   (1.16)     $   (1.06)     $   (1.50)
                                          =============  =============  =============



DILUTED
   Weighted average number of shares
      outstanding                           14,327,869     13,019,657     11,116,619
   Weighted average shares for dilutive
      securities                                -              -              -

      Average number of shares
         outstanding and potential
           dilutive shares                  14,327,869     13,019,657     11,116,619

   Net loss                               $(16,656,128)  $(13,777,589)  $(16,664,999)

DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE                $   (1.16)     $   (1.06)     $   (1.50)
                                          =============  =============  =============


</TABLE>
# C_2013171EN.01004004.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission

(Case T-143/13) (1)

1

2013/C 171/83

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2908 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2019 

Mr. CASE (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. SPEIER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. 

GABBARD, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. SWALWELL of California, 

Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mrs. LEE of Nevada, Mr. PETERS, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. 

KILMER, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mrs. LURIA, Mr. SOTO, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Family Reunification Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2908 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

2 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(F) Aliens who— 

6 ‘‘(i) are eligible for a visa under paragraph 

7 (1) or (3) of section 203(a); and 

8 ‘‘(ii) have a parent (regardless of whether 

9 the parent is living or dead) who was natural10 ized pursuant to— 

11 ‘‘(I) section 405 of the Immigration 

12 Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–649; 8 

13 U.S.C. 1440 note); or 

14 ‘‘(II) title III of the Act of October 

15 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137, chapter 876), as 

16 added by section 1001 of the Second War 

17 Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 182, chapter 

18 199).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. D-2531.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Carleton Wayne Keith Davis.

562 U.S. 813, 131 S. Ct. 403,

178 L. Ed. 2d 268,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7579.

October 4, 2010.

Carleton Wayne Keith Davis, of St. Louis, Missouri, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 10-6186.

#### Ernesto R. Hinojosa, Sr., Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 523,

178 L. Ed. 2d 386,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8590.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
      32.2


Form
      10-QSB


Viking
      Systems, Inc.


File
      No.
      000-49636





**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 Viking Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph
      Warrino, 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





Dated:  November
      14, 2005











/s/
      Joseph Warrino


Chief
      Financial Officer
No. 10-7144.

#### In re Edward Guoan, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 623,

178 L. Ed. 2d 454,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8925.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-6984.

#### Lacy J. Goggans, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 616,

178 L. Ed. 2d 447,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8895.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 171.
No. 10-5178.

#### Fabian Santiago, Petitioner v. Deirdre Battaglia, et al.

562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 254,

178 L. Ed. 2d 168,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6940.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Pre-decisional. For internal use only. 1	 

Tips From Former Smokers Tips 2018/TV Cut Downs 

Christine/“Time They’ll Never Get Back” 1:14 

The	vignette opens	on	the	title	“Time	They’ll	Never	Get	Back.	A	Former	Smoker’s	Story,”	and	cuts	to	a	shot	

of	Christine	looking	at	the	camera.		

CHRISTINE: Tobacco didn’t just affect me. It affected my children in profound ways, where 

those times that they lost they’ll never get back. 

We	then	see	an	image	of	Christine	with	her	son.	

CHRISTINE: My son, at only seventeen years old, was responsible for— 

The	vignette	cuts	back	to	Christine	speaking	to	the	camera.	

CHRISTINE: sometimes cooking, grocery shopping— 

We	then	see	an	image	of	Christine	with	her	daughter.	

CHRISTINE: making sure his sister was okay, that he made dinner for them both— 

The	vignette	cuts	back	to	Christine	speaking	to	the	camera.	

CHRISTINE: and that if she missed the bus he would have to pick her up at school. And he 

really had to be head of the household instead of being a kid. 

The	vignette	cuts	to	Christine	in	the	bathroom,	taking	items	out	of	the	medicine	cabinet.	

CHRISTINE: He didn’t get to go to college because the only adult in the household, his only 

parent, me, I became a dependent. And at seventeen, he had to take care of his mom. 

We	then	see	Christine	again,	speaking	to	the	camera.		

CHRISTINE: Tobacco... it’s a thief where it steals your time away from you. Things were stolen 

from my kids, I feel like. 

ART CARD: 

CDC LOGO 

BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
First Amendment to the NCR Officer Plan, executed December 17, 2004



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE NCR OFFICER PLAN 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS OF NCR (the “Plan”) as restated and in effect January 1, 1997 by NCR Corporation (“NCR”). 
  
 WHEREAS, NCR desires to amend the Plan to admit no new participants to the plan; 
  
 WHEREAS, the change made by this Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of NCR as of May 17, 2004, and the Senior
Vice President, Human Resources was authorized to execute a conforming amendment of the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, NCR does hereby amend the Plan, effective September 1, 2004, as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 Participation is hereby amended by the addition of the following new paragraph: 

  
 “Notwithstanding the above, effective September 1, 2004, no new participants will be admitted to the Plan.”

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NCR has caused this amendment to the Plan
to be executed this 17th day of December, 2004. 
  

			
	 FOR NCR CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Christine Wallace


	 	 	 Christine Wallace

	 	 	 Senior Vice President, Human Resources
#### Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Castle Restoration, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[49 NYS3d 635]

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 9, 2015, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213.

Motion by the plaintiffs, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the right of direct appeal from the order terminated upon the entry of the final judgment in the action on May 29, 2015. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 9, 2015, that branch of the motion was referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the right of direct appeal from the order terminated upon the entry of the final judgment in the action on May 29, 2015, is granted and the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as the right of direct appeal from the order terminated with the entry of the judgment *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the defendants’ cross appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d at 248; *Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC,*149 AD3d 692 [2017] [decided herewith]).

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 10-7317.

#### Ramiro Alvarado-Flores, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 683,

178 L. Ed. 2d 507,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9316.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 735.