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

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-297/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof in Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach v Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of Undertakings - Possibility of relying on a directive against individuals - Employee opposition to the transfer of their contracts to the transferee)

(2005/C 182/35)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-297/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) (Austria), made by decision of 4 June 2003, received at the Court on 10 July 2003, in the proceedings between Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach and Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.

----
Clinton JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 20, 2017 Rehearing Denied October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50001 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KATHLEEN OLIVER BONO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-215 September 17, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kathleen Oliver Bono, federal prisoner # 56219-080, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She argues that the district court erred by denying her motion to vacate her conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), in light of Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). This court held in United States v. McPhail , 112 F.3d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1997), that Bailey applies retroactively to casesNo. 97-50001 -2- on collateral review. Therefore, the sole issue in this appeal is whether there was a sufficient factual basis for Bono’s guilty-plea conviction for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).

In Bailey , the Supreme Court defined the “use” of a firearm, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), as “more than mere possession,” including “brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and most obviously, firing or attempting to fire, a firearm.” Bailey, 116 S. Ct. at 505-08. Further, the Supreme Court held that “use” of a firearm “requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.” Id. at 505. Relying on Bailey , in United States v. McPhail , this court held that “[i]t is no longer enough to show that the defendant merely stored a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds to establish that the defendant used the weapon during or in relation to drug trafficking activities.” McPhail, 112 F.3d at 199. In this case, the two loaded handguns, upon which the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction was based, were found on top of a bookcase in the living room during the execution of the search warrant. Under Bailey and McPhail , this is an insufficient factual basis for a “use” conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).No. 97-50001 -3- Nor do the facts support a conviction under the “carrying” prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The plain meaning of “carry” means to “‘to hold, wear or have upon one’s person.’” Consequently, the appellant was not carrying a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). See United States v. Garcia , 86 F.3d 394, 403 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (stating words of a statute should be given their plain meaning), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 752 (1997). Accordingly, we vacate Bono’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), dismiss the charge on that count, and remand the case for resentencing on the remaining counts for which she was convicted. VACATE and REMAND.
Terry Lee FREEZE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4804

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Eddie SEAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple-S Management Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date:      November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas    Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas    *President andChief Executive Officer*   
37
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F
of Primero Mining Corp. (Primero) for the year ended December 31, 2016, and
any amendments thereto (the Form 40-F), I, Peter Hayward, F. AusIMM, hereby
consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to and summaries
of scientific and technical information relating to Primeros mineral properties
(collectively, the Incorporated Information) and to the inclusion of the
Incorporated Information in the Annual Information Form filed as an exhibit to
the Form 40-F and incorporated by reference therein.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Peter Hayward ______________________
Peter Hayward, F.Aus/MM

Dated: March 31, 2017

---
Chester R. HOFFMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4382

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Robert WASCHPUSCH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mary Clare DEWIED, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 02, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Utika Chemont, Respondent, v Pathmark Supermarkets, Inc., Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 148]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 22, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on a puddle of rain water on the floor of the vestibule of the *546defendant’s store. There was a severe and sudden thunderstorm in progress at the time that the plaintiff entered the store.

The defendant met its initial burden of showing, as a matter of law, that it did not create the dangerous condition which caused the accident, and did not have actual notice thereof *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837-838; *Negri v Stop & Shop,*65 NY2d 625, 626). Moreover, to constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra; Alatief v New York City Tr. Auth.,*256 AD2d 371). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the rain water had accumulated on the floor of the vestibule for a sufficient length of time before the plaintiffs fall so as to permit the defendant to discover and remedy the condition *(see, Seneglia v FPL Foods,*273 AD2d 221; *Smith v May Dept. Store Co., 270*AD2d *870; Maguire v Southland Corp.,*245 AD2d 347).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence that this was a recurrent dangerous condition, or that the defendant had actual knowledge of this allegedly recurrent dangerous condition *(see, Carlos v New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth.,*262 AD2d 515; *Dwoskin v Burger King Corp.,*249 AD2d 358; *Young v Fleary,*226 AD2d 454). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
W.J.H., Respondent, v. D.J.Y., Appellant.

No. ED 106491

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: March 5, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Stephen James Bardol, 34 NorTh Gore Avenue, Suite 203, St. Louis, MO 63119, BARDOL LAW FIRM, LLC.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Kourtney Buchholz, 3520 Jeffco Blvd., Arnold, MO 63010, KRAMER, HAND, BUCHHOLZ & PARTNEY, LLC, David M. Duree, Co-Counsel, 312 South Lincoln Avenue, PO box 1416, O'Fallon, IL 62269, DAVID M. DUREE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

D.J.Y. appeals from the "Second Amended Order, Judgment, and Decree" designating the residence of W.J.H. as the address for medical, mailing, and educational purposes for W.C.H. ("Child") and finding it was in Child's best interest for the Hillsboro R-3 School District to be the school district for educational purposes. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
David T. HUGHES v. STATE

CR-15-0541

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 21, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Leslie Maize, Petitioner, v Ira Wexner, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent. Denis Dillon, Nonparty.

[774 NYS2d 757]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter aha, to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to dismiss the indictment in a case entitled *People v Maize,*pending in that county under indictment No. 2694/02, on the ground that the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the indictment as time-barred should have been granted.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
[No. 30490-2-II.

Division Two.

May 25, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Michael Johnson, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-2-06319-2, James R. Orlando, J., entered June 12, 2003. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Morgan, A.C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or 
404-338-7185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time via 
telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan 
Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-
1227 or 404-338-7185 or write TAP Office, Stop 211-D, 401 West 
Peachtree Street, NW., Atlanta, GA, 30308-3520, or contact us at the 
Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

     March 17, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-6371 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 461 

Condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide 

shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2023 

Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS (for herself and Mr. WILLIAMS of New York) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the use of elementary and secondary school 

facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States. 

Whereas sheltering aliens who are not admitted to the United 

States in school facilities will divert educational resources 

from children already suffering from historic learning 

loss; 

Whereas, on May 16 and 17, 2023, about 300 such aliens 

were sheltered in current or former public school gymnasiums in New York City, and Mayor Eric Adams announced plans to use as many as 20 public school gymnasiums as overflow housing for such aliens; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 461 IH 

Whereas turning schools into housing centers for such aliens 

compromises schools’ duty to educate enrolled children 

and keep them safe; 

Whereas hosting such aliens on school campuses poses a significant safety risk to school children and compromises 

schools’ ability to secure their own campus; 

Whereas using school gymnasiums as housing for such aliens 

may impede children’s access to safe recreation and physical education, may force children to spend their entire 

school day with little exercise, and may disrupt the ordinary routines of the school day; 

Whereas the Biden administration has created these problems 

with a failed border security strategy that has encouraged illegal aliens to cross the border, tallying more than 

10,000 a day ahead of the May 11, 2023, expiration of 

the public health emergency relating to COVID–19, declared under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act 

(42 U.S.C. 247d), and of the concomitant power of the 

President, under section 362 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

265), to prohibit entries of persons into the United 

States from certain countries or places; and 

Whereas the school children in the United States should not 

pay for the disastrous immigration policies of either the 

Biden administration or local leaders: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 demns the use of the facilities of a public elementary or 

3 secondary school that serves students to provide shelter 

4 for aliens who are not admitted to the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
----

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-273/05)

(2005/C 217/113)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

----
STATE EX REL. Dave WILKERSON Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1739

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. In addition, relator's guilty pleas waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his convictions. *State v. Crosby* , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00109 - CR CASEY OWENS , A

PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . 2018 - 414,051 , Honorable William R. Eichman II , Presiding 

### May 25 , 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Casey Owens was convicted of murder 1 and sentenced to forty year s’ confinement. The trial court’s cer tification of a ppellant’s right of appeal reflects that this is a plea bargain case from which a ppellant has no right of appeal and that a ppellant has waived the right of appeal. The certification

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 19.02(B)(1).2

comports with the record before the Court. Notwithstanding the certification, a ppellant filed a notice of appeal , pro se, challenging h is conviction. We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that show s the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” By letter of April 21, 2022 , we notified a ppellant of the consequences of the trial court’s certification and directed him to file a response demonstrating grounds for continui ng the appeal by May 2 . To date, a ppellant has not filed a response or had any further communication with this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the trial court’s certification. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). Per Curiam Do not pu blish.
SwaM on the transmRter, and 

then Iwwer on the PHANTOM. 

System Start 

3 SelFcheek 

FadSate LED: Bfir@ YNbw 

~h, 000000000 

SenserErtorTooB;g

_LED:Red ~ 

GreentYMow 

:

—~ 

~ompass Error Too Big 

 LED:Red+Yellow 

OCOn3 

iis a'te: Powc<en L 

I LED : Blink s oa 

Cxeen Ouiddy 

t- Recard Me — ~ 

farward 

directien. 

Any GPS Sateil 

+ importanc d PFANTOM 5 

LED : Mode+GPS Satepite mvca aMrpovrer on and 

LED : Mnde • _ NumbertBGreen ce,~ ~~t~ s~~P_ 

GPSSatNkteNUnber 6Gr=ev,..aam:'.,;:u-.,ieu:.: ~c~,~ gransnomul 

e Number GPS Sa[eCde Number26 If it:s uatunary on me 

grou^o. cleasF w U61 1E 1.J 

: Mode ~ GPS Satelite 

NumberaOYellow 

IOCOYS 

W annng uP s ok. 

IF Red LED appears in the last four 

green flashes. Ne autopbt system 

wrmot work. 

Tt~h~

---- GPS AT71. Mode 

ant: At any moment al~r power 

he GPS SaEet6¢e number s less 

 antl last'or at Oeast t0s: even 

you seled the GPS ATTI. 61ode 

D blinks in tlte GPS ATTI Mode, 

ANTOM wl wak !n ATT7. Made. 

GPS Sateihe Numberz8 

SIOC On 

.— — StaRMobrs 

Method of Start Motor 

~

m ar ~ >. ~ 

! ! ~t r~

. 

a~_~~ Lr'±'` t[s"J 

M°nDeKe 

SL

Keep Levelingl 000000000 

anding J 

ED : Blint Green Ouickly 

Recard d[e Hame Poim 

-lone Pe,nt 

Rec[rdin~ is ok 

Fty~g 

 

I-,._,.... .. . . _ 

. . ... 

. 

.vcmorr-v Retumtome 

Home Point ~000000 

t? t:umAc- PS A i I rA<.]x. 

..~ .ance oe:xt~n tte iv.,x P.::^.t ano 

1 ~ ,:,h- 01; . 

~ 

NNNN~ 

F:rstLevei ~ — 

Prote<.on Alert 

i 

LSPHeghat

ndLevel

o[eon A!en 

 Descent 

Power off the PHANTOM, and 

then switoh off tAe o-ansmitter 

Green Pan means normal procedures: 

—~ means regular situadan. 

—/ flleans Selettable or IMfsiLte siNatlon. 

Pink Te•t tetls the tlebls. 

Red Part means possible abrwmwl srtuauan. 

Part is possiMe in ncrmal ar abnmmal s+watan. 

require you to confirm by [he 7 eii! fu detaAs. 

5:,:= Pan is tNe wrMrtan of the nonna! situation. 

Purole Part is the condilion of the abnormal sAuauon. 

IOC Entling