alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Micah David Brown , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00039

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR21

- 131 ). Memorandum Opini on delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice
Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the ap pellant, Micah David Brown , has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 6 , 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Ava Electris CANNIE aka Eva Helene Cannie, Appellant, v. JACKSONVILLE GOLF and Country Club Homeowners Association, Marsh Landing Management Co. and Country Club Concierge Magazine, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D18-4787

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 7, 2019

Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED .

Makar, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Parts 1, 12, 22, 47, and 52
          - [FAC 2025-02; FAR Case 2019-017, Item I; Docket No. FAR-2019-0017; Sequence No. 1]
          - RIN 9000-AO00

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018, which requires that domestic carriers who contract with the Federal Government to provide air transportation must submit an annual report with certain information related to prevention of human trafficking.

# DATES:

Effective January 3, 2025.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For clarification of content, contact Ms. Malissa Jones, Procurement Analyst, at 571-882-4687 or by email at                         *malissa.jones@gsa.gov.*                         For information pertaining to status or publication schedules contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or                         *GSARegSec@gsa.gov.*                         Please cite FAC 2025-02, FAR Case 2019-017.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DoD, GSA, and NASA are correcting an effective date in the preamble under the Discussion and Analysis section of the rule.

                    In the FR Doc. 2024-29373, published in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 89 FR 101821 in the issue of December 16, 2024, make the following correction:                

#### 4. Retroactive Applicability [Corrected]

On page 101822, in the second column, in paragraph 4., Response, correct the date “November 1, 2024”, to read “January 3, 2025”.

William F. Clark,

Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-30935 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
# C_2020433EN.01003901.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/39

---

Action brought on 12 October 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-510/20)

(2020/C 433/48)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and Ivan Zalogin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria, in breach of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2008/56/EC, has failed to send to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the mandatory updates of (i) the initial assessment of the status of the marine environment, (ii) the determination of good environmental status and (iii) the environmental targets.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 164, p. 19.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(3)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - (-)arkansas(1)
              - california(43)
              - colorado(1)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(15)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(13)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        September 20, 2018        Habitat Connectivity: Assessing Threats and IDing Conservation Actions
# C_2020137EN.01003902.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 February 2020 — Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

(Case C-86/20)

(2020/C 137/55)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o..

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a V I 1 document issued under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (1) of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, and containing a certificate issued by an authorised body from a third country certifying that the product has been produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or approved by the Community constitute a mere administrative condition for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a V I 1 document issued under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (1) of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, and containing a certificate issued by an authorised body from a third country certifying that the product has been produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or approved by the Community constitute a mere administrative condition for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union?

| 2. | Does EU law preclude a national rule which allows a dealer of wine imported from Moldova to avoid liability for the administrative offence of marketing wine which has undergone oenological practices not allowed in the European Union, unless the national authorities refute the dealer's assumption that the wine was produced in accordance with oenological practices approved by the European Union, which the dealer made from the V I 1 document issued by the Moldovan authorities under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law preclude a national rule which allows a dealer of wine imported from Moldova to avoid liability for the administrative offence of marketing wine which has undergone oenological practices not allowed in the European Union, unless the national authorities refute the dealer's assumption that the wine was produced in accordance with oenological practices approved by the European Union, which the dealer made from the V I 1 document issued by the Moldovan authorities under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1.

---
# C_2021028EN.01002901.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 12 November 2020 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

(Case C-597/20)

(2021/C 28/46)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

Question referred

Must Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation, that body cannot compel the airline in question to pay the compensation due to the passenger under the regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

J.S.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

No. 2D23-862

February 7, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Christopher M. 

Labruzzo, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-9711

NO. 2019-BA-0054

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

Petitioner's current application makes no showing of any significant change in circumstances since his prior applications were denied in 2007, 2008, and 2017. In the absence of any compelling new evidence or significant changed circumstances, this court will not reconsider a decision denying admission to the bar. *See* *In re: Jordan* , 00-3006 (La. 12/15/00), 775 So.2d 1065.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the application for admission be and hereby is denied. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9(D)(13), petitioner may not re-apply for admission until he can demonstrate a significant change in circumstances, and in no event until at least two years have passed from the date of this judgment.

**ADMISSION DENIED.**

Clark, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., would grant conditional admission.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CLARK, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

I agree with the denial of admission in this case, but would not allow petitioner to re-apply for admission until at least three years have passed from the date of this judgment.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

I agree with the denial of admission in this case. I write separately to raise the question of whether the Court should continue to review petitions for admission from this petitioner after he has been denied admission in this-his ***fourth*** -application. *See* *In re: Jordan* , 12-0051 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 683 (prohibiting petitioner from reapplying after third application for admission).
STATE of Louisiana v. Earl Joseph DUPRE, Sr.

NO. 2018-KH-1624

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

*450Denied. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

WEIMER, J., recused.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on:
a) Forms S-8 No. 333-49646, No. 33-41527, No. 33-55446, No. 33-55448, No.
33-78848, No. 33-78844, No. 333-44763, No. 333-44765, No. 333-13007, No.
33-78834, No. 33-95270, No. 333-13015, No. 333-76601, No. 333-89271, No.
333-75829; and b) Forms S-3 No. 333-42792, No. 333-35434, No. 333-63615, and No.
333-00118 of NTL Incorporated (the "Company") and in the related Prospectuses of
our report dated March 2, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of the Company included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                            /s/Ernst & Young LLP



New York, New York
March 28, 2000
EXHIBIT 32



Certifications of

Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 Design Within
Reach, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne Badovinus, President and Chief Executive 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 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. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2004 |  |                        
|                     |  | /s/ WAYNE BADOVINUS    
|                     |  | Wayne Badovinus        
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Design Within Reach, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Barnard, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary 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 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. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2004 |  |                        
|                     |  | /s/ DAVID BARNARD      
|                     |  | David Barnard          
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries



|                                                           |  |                                     |  |                    |     |  
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | --- | -
|Name of Subsidiary                                         |  | Country of Incorporation            |  | Ownership Interest |    
|China United Network Communications Corporation Limited    |  | China                               |  |                    | 100 | %
|Unicom Vsens Telecommunications Company Limited            |  | China                               |  |                    | 100 | %
|Unicom New Horizon Telecommunications Corporation Limited  |  | China                               |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Hong Kong) Operations Limited                |  | Hong Kong                           |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Americas) Operations Limited                 |  | United States                       |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Singapore) Operations Pte. Ltd.              |  | Singapore                           |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Europe) Operations Limited                   |  | United Kingdom                      |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Japan) Operations Corporation                |  | Japan                               |  |                    | 100 | %
|Billion Express Investments Limited                        |  | British Virgin Islands              |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (South Africa) Operations (Pty) Limited       |  | South Africa                        |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (MYA) Operations Company Limited              |  | The Republic of theUnion of Myanmar |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Australia) Operations Pty Limited            |  | Australia                           |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom Global Limited                                |  | Hong Kong                           |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Russia) Operations Limited Liability Company |  | Russia                              |  |                    | 100 | %
|China Unicom (Brazil) Telecommunications Company Limited   |  | Brazil                              |  |                    | 100 | %
Order entered November 13 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01214

- CV

HCD HOUSTON CORPORAT ION, ET AL., Appellant s

V.

PAM ESLINGER, AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELLA JILL RENICK, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 07211



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellees’ November 9, 2018 motion for an extension of time to f ile a

brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to December 3, 2018

.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.2

 

English Summary of an agreement dated September 6, 2016 between Xavier Luis Ochoa Peressini (the “Employee”) and Andes Corporacion Minera S.A. (the “Corporation”).

 

The Corporation appoints the Employee as Chief Operating Officer of all of the Corporation’s projects located in Argentina, including the San Jose and Los Azules projects.  Among his responsibilities, the Employee shall undertake the following:

 

·                  Holding quarterly meetings at the San Jose mine, to review the operations and performance of the project

·                  Organizing meetings as required, with local authorities in Argentina regarding the San Jose mine and the Los Azules project

·                  Organizing monthly meetings and overseeing the technical teams at the Los Azules project

 

The Employee shall report to the President of the Corporation or to anyone designated by the President and shall devote such time as is necessary to carry out such services.  The agreement is subject to a three month probationary period and the Employee shall be paid remuneration of $100,000 per annum for the services to be provided hereunder.

 

The agreement contains a restriction on the Employee for a period of six months from the termination of the agreement for any reason, from taking any interest or participating in activities in the Department of Calingasta, San Juan and Perito Moreno, Santa Cruz, subject to certain exceptions.  The agreement also contains a provision whereby the Employee is prohibited from soliciting the Corporation’s employees, consultants or officers for a period of 18 months following the termination of the agreement.

 

The agreement is governed by the laws of Argentina.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


          CERTIFICATION BY BRUCE L. CLELAND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        ----------------------------------------------------------------

     I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc.,
as managing owner of Campbell Alternative Asset Trust, certify that (i) the Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of Campbell Alternative Asset
Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Campbell
Alternative Asset Trust.

                                      Campbell Alternative Asset Trust
                                      By: Campbell & Company, Inc.,
                                          managing owner


                                      By: /s/ BRUCE L. CLELAND
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Bruce L. Cleland
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          March 28, 2003






                                       E2