alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1179

_____________

Ronald V. Kwatick, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: June 13, 1997

Filed: July 7, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald V. Kwatick, the plaintiff in this case of alleged age discrimination,

appeals the order of the District Court granting the motion of McDonnell Douglas

1

Corporation, the defendant, for summary judgment. This is a reduction-in-force case,

and the District Court determined, among other things, that Kwatick had failed to

produce evidence to show that his age was in any way taken into account in the

employer's decision not to retain him.
-2-

Having considered all of Kwatick's arguments, we conclude that the District

Court correctly determined that Kwatick's claim of age discrimination must fail for lack

of evidentiary support. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment,

and the order of the District Court is

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
no. CP&HI&S THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. COMANCHE COUNTY, TEXAS 

# ~fc^( £J^*J fc,'/^ 3ft 220THJUDICIALDISTRICT

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL 

### I, Judge of the trial court, certify in this criminal case that the Defendant's appeal: V is not a plea-bargain case and the Defendant has the right ofappeal; or 

### is aplea-bargain case, but is on matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, and the Defendant has the right of appeal; or 

### is aplea-bargain case, but is taken after getting the trial court's permission to appeal, and the Defendant has a right of appeal; or 

### is aplea-bargain case, and the Defendant has NO right of appeal.

iwaived the right of appeal. 

## C>/z//&>/'7 JUDGE PRESIDING DATE SIGNED 

### Ihave received acopy ofthis certification. Ihave also been informed ofmy rights concerning any appeal ofthis criminal case including any right to file apro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 ofthe Texas Rules of 

### Appellate Procedure. Ihave been admonished that my attorney must mail acopy ofthe court ofappeal's judgment and opinion to my last known address and that Ihave only 30 days in which to file apro se petition for discretionary review in the court ofcriminal appeals. TEX.R.APP.P.68.2. Iacknowledge that, ifIwish to appeal this case and ifIam entitled to do so, it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communication, ofany change in the addressatwhich Iam currently living or any change in ycurrent prison unit. Iunderstand that, because ofappellate deadhnesfirmil to 

### timely inform my appella;e attorney ofany change in my address, Imay lose the opportunity tofile apr/se petjt^n for discretionary review. 

# FILED^ fendant (ifnot presented by counsel) At. o.C|0Ck_^Defepdant's Counsel ^q GTjDO 

### failing Address^ ^-

. , ^"JX" <>^T7^> J>^^ M^hnneNumber: _ JA> I JUN 21 2017 & Fax Number:

_ Telephone Number: BRENDA DICKEYFaxNumber: District Clerk. Comanche Co., TX ,_ „ .- .. „*, 

### *

*A defendant in a criminal case has the righto^pp^undex^sejuje^^^ial court shall enter a certification ofthe defendant's right to appeal in every case in which it enters a judgmenToTguilt or other appealable order. In a plea bargain case-that is, acase in which adefendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant- adefendant may appeal only: (A) those maters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial courts permission to appeal. TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2 (a)(2). IN COURJO^F APPEALS

rr ELEVENTH DISTRICT JUN 2 6 2017 SHERffafyOJJAMSON, CLERK Ry ^4DW\ Deputy
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tata Communications Limited, a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of India (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s best knowledge, that:
  1.  the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the report.
  The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.
  Date: November 9, 2010
 /s/ Narasimhan SrinathNarasimhan SrinathManaging Director and CEO/s/ Sanjay BawejaSanjay BawejaChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Parks! America, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 27, 2011 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Dated: May 9, 2011   /s/ Dale Van Voorhis Dale Van Voorhis Chief Executive Officer Parks! America, Inc.   Dated: May 9, 2011    /s/ Jon Laria Jon Laria Chief Financial Officer Parks! America, Inc.   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parks! America, Inc. and will be retained by Parks! America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Angel CARABALLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-657

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022340EN.01003101.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — MZ v Commission

(Case T-631/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of taxation - Limitation of the choice of the second language in which the tests are to be carried out - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Plea of illegality - Admissibility - Discrimination based on language - Special nature of the posts to be filled - Justification - Interests of the service - Proportionality)

(2022/C 340/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand, D. Milanowska and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 10 December 2019 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/363/18 decided, after review, not to place her name on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 7 in the field of taxation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 10 December 2019 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/363/18 decided, after review, not to place the name of MZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 7 in the field of taxation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 10 December 2019 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/363/18 decided, after review, not to place the name of MZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 7 in the field of taxation;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 99.1.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of the registrant certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Date: May 19, 2003



/s/ Fred W. Jackson, Jr. 
Fred W. Jackson, Jr.

President,

Chief Executive Officer, and

Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Alston, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Carmina Technologies Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control over financial reporting; and.

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

---







(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.





Date: May 26, 2004

/s/ JOHN M. ALSTON 
John M. Alston, 
President and Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 107164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31377]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 
Act

    On December 23, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
consent decree with the United States District Court for the District 
of South Carolina in United States v. LANXESS Corporation, Civil Action 
No. 24-cv-07522.
    The United States filed this lawsuit under Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Section 113(b), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), seeking a civil penalty and 
injunctive relief for the Defendant LANXESS Corporation's failures at 
its Charleston, South Carolina manufacturing facility to properly (1) 
identify and monitor equipment that can leak hazardous air pollutants; 
(2) control and monitor wastewater treatment processes; (3) calculate 
the status of batch process vents; and (4) adhere to recordkeeping 
requirements. The consent decree requires the Defendant to perform 
injunctive relief to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, pay a 
civil penalty of $650,000, and spend at least $3.545 million performing 
supplemental environmental projects.
    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on 
the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
and should refer to United States v. LANXESS Corporation, D.J. Ref. No. 
90-5-2-1-12671. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty 
(30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be 
submitted either by email or by mail:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         To submit comments:                     Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email............................  [email protected].
By mail.............................  Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
                                       DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
                                       Washington, DC 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States 
in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the 
commenter.
    During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may 
be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. If you require assistance 
accessing the proposed consent decree, you may request assistance by 
email or by mail to the address provided above for submitting comments.

Scott Bauer,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-31377 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Juan Manuel Albarado, * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 15-11402N.

Vs. No. 11-16-00280-CV * May 4, 2017

Amanda M. Jimenez, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00222- CV P ryor C ustom Hom es, L.P .; RP CH Managem ent, L.L.C.

and E dm und R. P ryor, A ppellan ts

v. Mid-Continent Casualty Com pany, Ap pellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN401390 , HO NORAB LE STEPH EN YELENO SKY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N The pa rties have filed an agree d motion to dismiss this a ppeal. We grant their motion and dis mis s th is a

pp e a l.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Waldrop Dismissed on Ag ree d Motion Filed: Oc tober 19, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 6, 2016

a0829

Order 

Clerk

September 6, 2016

152429

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152429

COA: 328594

Wayne CC: 09-007942-FC

WILLIAM MARSHALL MOSLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT
      NO. 32.2





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Systems Management Solutions, Inc.,
      a
      Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To
      my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
      ended
      December 31, 2006 (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.


Dated: November
              16, 2007
            By:
            /s/ MORRIS
              KUNOFSKYMORRIS
                KUNOFSKY
              CHIEF
                FINANCIAL OFFICER
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Fluid Dynamics

Filters

              - products_publications(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(8)
              - hawaii(7)
              - idaho(2)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - (-)pennsylvania(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(2)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(6)

## By Year

publication        April 1, 2014        Capturing interactions between nitrogen and hydrological cycles under historical climate and land use: Susquehanna watershed analysis with the GFDL land model LM3-TAN
# C_2022109EN.01002202.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)

(Case T-683/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 109/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1648/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---