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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - virginia(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)
              - (-)2021(1)

staff profileWilliam Leith
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

June 30, 2021

p0623 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2021

162449 & (41)

NORMAN E. CARSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 162449

COA: 350257

MCAC: 18

- 000012

BANDIT INDUSTRIES, INC. and ACUITY, A

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees/

Cross

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2020

ju dgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellants are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we VACATE the December 17, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals and

REMAND thi s case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted of

those issues that the Court of Appeals previously declined to review. See Carson v

Bandit Industries, Inc , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued January 2, 2020

(Docket No . 350257). As consideration of the appellant’s other issues may impact the

Court of Appeals’ decision on the issue of recoupment, the Court of Appeals should also

reconsider the recoupment issue and address the arguments presented by the parties in

this C ourt with respect to that issue. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should now be

reviewed by this Court.
STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard DOUGLAS

No. 2017-KP-2068

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator's remaining claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).

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 second or 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 La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of *418the 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.
EX PARTE T.D.

CR-16-1098

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 17
- 00691
- CR

Eddie Lynn Tackett, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 391ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TOM GRE EN COUNTY NO. D
- 16
- 0544
- SB, TH E HONORABLE BRAD GOO DWIN, JUDGE PRESIDIN G

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due December 18, 2017. On counsel’s motions, the time for filing was extended to March 19, 2018. Appellant’s counsel has now filed a third motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant in
part the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than April 17 , 2018. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will
result in the refer ral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on March 30, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Do Not Publish
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - (-)science_science(1)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2024(1)

science explorer topicThreats from Space
Tavares Survell EVANS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2623

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 388 

Designating the week of September 25 through September 29, 2023, as 

‘‘National Clean Energy Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. 

HICKENLOOPER, Mr. COONS, Mr. WARNOCK, Mr. SULLIVAN, Ms. SMITH, 

Mr. KING, Mr. REED, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. ROMNEY, Ms. WARREN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and 

Mr. CASSIDY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of September 25 through September 

29, 2023, as ‘‘National Clean Energy Week’’. 

Whereas, across the United States, clean and readily abundant forms of energy are powering more homes and businesses than ever before; 

Whereas clean energy generation is readily available from 

zero- and low-emissions sources; 

Whereas the clean energy sector is a growing part of the 

economy and has been a key driver of economic growth 

in the United States in recent years; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 388 IS 

Whereas technological innovation can further reduce costs, 

enhance reliability, and increase deployment of clean energy sources; 

Whereas the report of the Department of Energy entitled 

‘‘United States Energy & Employment Report 2023’’ 

found that, at the end of 2022, the energy and energy 

efficiency sectors in the United States employed approximately 8,100,000 individuals; 

Whereas the scaling of affordable and exportable clean energy 

is essential to reducing global emissions; 

Whereas clean energy jobs contribute to the growth of local 

economies; and 

Whereas innovative clean energy solutions and clean energy 

jobs are part of the energy future of the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of September 25 

3 through September 29, 2023, as ‘‘National Clean 

4 Energy Week’’; 

5 (2) encourages individuals and organizations 

6 across the United States to support commonsense 

7 solutions that address the economic, environmental, 

8 and energy needs of the United States in the 21st 

9 century; 

10 (3) encourages the Federal Government, States, 

11 municipalities, and individuals to invest in afford12 able, clean, and low-emitting energy technologies; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 388 IS 

1 (4) supports reliable and affordable energy for 

2 the people of the United States; and 

3 (5) recognizes the role of entrepreneurs and 

4 small businesses in ensuring the leadership of the 

5 United States in the global energy marketplace and 

6 in supporting low-cost, clean, and reliable energy in 

7 the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2021357EN.01002402.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-172/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of law - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 357/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 on the recovery from Mr Robert Rochefort of a sum of EUR 60 499,38 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 22 January 2020 in so far as they concern sums paid for April 2010, for the days not corresponding to the missions accepted by the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the period from 29 to 31 March 2011;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Rochefort and the Parliament each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
---

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

The undersigned, Xiangqian Li,
the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of CHINA BAK
BATTERY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

2. Information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this 15thof July, 2013.

| | /s/
      Xiangqian Li                                   
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | Xiangqian Li                                             
| | Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
      Financial
| | Officer                                                  
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial  
| | and Accounting Officer)                                  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be retained by China
BAK Battery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

         In connection with the Annual Report and Transition Report on Form 20-F
of Silverline Technologies Limited (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2002, and the transition period from April 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ravi
Subramanian, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:  February 15, 2003               By:   /s/ Ravi Subramanian
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Ravi Subramanian
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Annual Report and Transition Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1



          CERTIFICATION 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 United American Healthcare
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Periodic Report"), we, William C. Brooks, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen D. Harris, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer 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:

         1.       the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  June 9, 2006


By: /s/ William C. Brooks
    ------------------------------------------------
       Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer



By: /s/ Stephen D. Harris
    ------------------------------------------------
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

P.H. Tang & Co.       Main Office                   Corporate Reconstruction &
Certified Public      3/rd/ Floor, Rammon House,    Insolvency Office
Accountants           101 Sai Yaung Choi Street     8/th/ Floor, Gold & Silver
                      South                         Commercial Building
                      Mongkok, Kowloon,             12-18 Mercer Street,
                      Tel: 2398 1138                Central, Hong Kong
                      Fax: 2398 1289                Tel: 2815 5823
                                                    Fax: 2815 5987

January 28, 2003


To        (i)    M/s. Ram Associates
                 Princeton, New Jersey - USA

          (ii)   M/s. Silverline Technologies Limited
                 Unit 121, SDF IV, Seep3. Andhari East
                 Mumbai 400 096 - India

Dear Sirs,

Re: Sky Capital International Limited

We consent to the incorporation of our report dated April 27, 2001 relating to
Sky Capital International Limited's audited financial amendments for the
quarters ended December 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001, in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of Silverline Technologies Limited for the period ended March 31,
2002.

Place: Hong Kong

Yours faithfully,


/s/ P.H. Tang & Co.
P.H. TANG & CO.
Certified Public Accountants
# C_2021452EN.01003202.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — France v ECHA

(Case T-127/20) (1)

(REACH - Substance evaluation - Aluminium chloride - Aluminium chloride, basic - Aluminium sulphate - ECHA decisions requesting further information - Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Multiple grounds for the decision of the Board of Appeal - Grounds capable of justifying the decision - Inoperative nature of the pleas directed against the other grounds)

(2021/C 452/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin, W. Zemamta and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, M. Goodacre and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kemira Oyj (Helsinki, Finland), Grace Silica GmbH (Düren, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 17 December 2019 annulling three decisions of ECHA of 21 December 2017 requesting the registrants concerned to carry out new tests in the context of the evaluation of aluminium chloride, aluminium chloride, basic and aluminium sulphate (joined cases A-003-2018, A-004-2018 and A-005-2018).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kemira Oyj and Grace Silica GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kemira Oyj and Grace Silica GmbH;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
STATE EX REL. Fard A. DICKERSON v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1239

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

Reconsideration denied.
# C_2020348EN.01000701.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2020 — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

(Case C-368/20)

(2020/C 348/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NW

Respondent authority: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law preclude domestic legislation in the form of consecutive domestic decrees prolonging border control which, cumulatively, allow for the reintroduction of border control for a period which exceeds the two-year time limit laid down in Article 25 and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (1) without a corresponding Council recommendation pursuant to Article 29 of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law preclude domestic legislation in the form of consecutive domestic decrees prolonging border control which, cumulatively, allow for the reintroduction of border control for a period which exceeds the two-year time limit laid down in Article 25 and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (1) without a corresponding Council recommendation pursuant to Article 29 of that regulation?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1, as corrected by OJ 2018 L 272, p. 69).

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Methods, protocols, and procedures        June 26, 2020        Selecting and Conducting Evaluations of Hydrologic Instruments

Posters        December 31, 2004        Oceanography Beyond the Golden Gate
Mary ELLEN and Bruce Fleury v. The BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

NO. 2018-C-2106

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.