alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020287EN.01002802.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 June 2020 — ZN v Generalno konsulstvo (General Consulate) of the Republic of Bulgaria in the City of Valencia, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-280/20)

(2020/C 287/45)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZN

Defendant: Generalno konsulstvo (General Consulate) of the Republic of Bulgaria in the City of Valencia, Kingdom of Spain

Question referred

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (1) in conjunction with recital (3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies for the purpose of determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to adjudicate in a dispute between a worker from that Member State and the consular service of that Member State in the sovereign territory of another Member State, or should those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the national jurisdictional rules of the Member State of which both parties are nationals apply to such a dispute?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31746]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1191 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-986, K2025-985.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31746 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #20543 and #20544; GEORGIA Disaster Number GA-20010]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4821-DR), dated September 24, 2024.

*Incident:*                         Tropical Storm Debby.                    

# DATES:

Issued on December 26, 2024.

*Incident Period:*                         August 4, 2024 through August 20, 2024.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         February 7, 2025.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         June 24, 2025.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated September 24, 2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for                           ( print page 717)                        filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to February 7, 2025.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Alejandro Contreras,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2024-31596 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Jeffery Lamar GAINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3996

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021502EN.01002702.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/27

---

Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — IJ v Parliament

(Case T-74/20) (1)

(Civil service - Article 100 of the CEOS - Five-year medical cover deferment - Complaint with the Ombudsman - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Delay - No new and substantial facts - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IJ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr, L. Vernier and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 10 October 2018 to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and, in so far as is necessary, of the decision of 29 October 2019 rejecting the complaint of 8 January 2019 against that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | IJ shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

IJ shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
## 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

## By Year

Education        April 22, 2004        Introduction to Geologic Mapping

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

Education        October 26, 2018        Principal Aquifers
EX PARTE Ronnie BARKER

CR-16-0884

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40197 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELMER ESTUARDO SOPONY-VALENZUELA, also known as Julio Rene Cardona-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-690-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elmer Estuardo Sopony-Valenzuela appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 06-40197 -2- The Government does not seek to invoke the appeal waiver and has thus waived the issue. See United States v. Story , 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006). Sopony-Valenzuela’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Sopony-Valenzuela contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Sopony-Valenzuela properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED.
*

FAA Airport Safety R&D Section

April 2014

Outcomes
        -  Estimated construction unit costs for common problematic geometry.
        -  Inventoried and prioritized list of locations, by incursion frequency and FAA region. 

Rationale:

This study will initiate a 10-year improvement program to correct high risk areas on airports that have problematic taxiway geometry.

Problematic Geometry (RPD 142)  *New* 
| Contract Funds ($K)               |
|-----------------------------------|
| FY14                              | FY15 | FY16 |
| Estimated Construction Unit Costs | - | $0 | $0 |
| Conduct Inventory                 | - | $0 | $0 |
| Airport/Location Prioritization   | - | $500 | $300 |
| Improvement Plans                 | - | $500 | $700 |
| TOTALS:                           | - | $1,000 | $1,000 |

*
Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 3 of 9 PageID 3
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 4 of 9 PageID 4
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 5 of 9 PageID 5
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 6 of 9 PageID 6
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 7 of 9 PageID 7
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 8 of 9 PageID 8
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 1 Filed 07/08/03 Page 9 of 9 PageID 9
Non-Destructive Pavement Testing (RPD 143)

       Contract Funds ($K)

*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

d0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140176 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140176 

 COA: 293796 

Oakland CC: 99-165767-FH 

CHRISTOPHER LEE BEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2009 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael M. Euler v. Miles Marks and Texas Dow Employees Federal 

Credit Union

Appellate case number: 01-13-00085-CV

Trial court case number: 110606132cv

Trial court: 9th District Court of Montgomery County

On February 21, 2013, the Clerk of this Court sent an affidavit of indigence that had been 

mistakenly filed in the court of appeals to the trial court clerk, with instructions to the trial court 

clerk to notify this Court if no contest was filed to the affidavit after it was received by the trial 

court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(d)(2). The trial court clerk has notified this Court that no 

contest was filed. Accordingly, the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, and appellant is 

entitled to proceed in this appeal without advance payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f).

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records that 

appellant is indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.

The District Clerk has filed with this Court a clerk’s record containing the items specified 

in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a). 

It is ORDERED that the Court Reporter file with this Court, within 30 days of the date 

of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record, or a notification that no record was 

taken in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(4). 

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days of the date the 

complete record is filed in this Court. Appellee’s brief must be filed within 30 days of the date 

appellant’s brief is filed.

Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the record is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 8, 2013
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

         In connection with the Quarterly report of Capital Growth Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott Allen, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 20, 2004

                                       /s/ Scott Allen
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Scott Allen, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2023321EN.01000201.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 July 2023 — European Commission v CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, EE Ltd

(Case C-376/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Control of concentrations of undertakings - Mobile telecommunications services - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market - Oligopolistic market - Significant impediment to effective competition - Non-coordinated effects - Standard of proof - European Commission’s margin of discretion with regard to economic matters - Limits of judicial review - Guidelines on horizontal mergers - Factors relevant to demonstrating a significant impediment to effective competition - Concepts of ‘important competitive force’ and ‘close competitors’ - Closeness of competition between the parties to the concentration - Quantitative analysis of the effects of the proposed concentration on prices - Efficiencies - Distortion - Complaint raised by the General Court of the European Union of its own motion - Annulment)

(2023/C 321/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission, (represented initially by: G. Conte, M. Farley, J. Szczodrowski and C. Urraca Caviedes, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, G. Conte, M. Farley, J. Szczodrowski and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd (represented initially by J. Aitken, K. Asakura, A. Coe, M. Davis, S. Prichard, Solicitors, O.W. Brouwer, advocaat, B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, A. Müller, advocate, and T. Wessely, Rechtsanwalt and subsequently by J. Aitken, K. Asakura, A. Coe, M. Davis, Solicitors, O.W. Brouwer, advocaat, B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, A. Müller, advocate, and T. Wessely Rechtsanwalt), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Brandon, and subsequently by F. Shibli, acting as Agents), EE Ltd

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented initially by C. Simpson, M. Sánchez Rydelski and C. Zatschler, and subsequently by C. Simpson and M. Sánchez Rydelski, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of 28 May 2020, CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (T 399/16, EU:T:2020:217); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of 28 May 2020, CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission (T 399/16, EU:T:2020:217);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 390, 16.11.20

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00296- CV

Texas Com m ission on En vironm ental Quali ty, Appellant

v. P ubl ic Citize n, In c., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0342 6, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

P ER CURIAM

Appellee Public Citi zen, I nc., as part of its motion to dismiss this interlocutory appea l

as moot, has asked in the alternative that this Court rema nd for the limit ed purpose of allowing Public Citi zen to voluntarily dismiss its claims agai n s t appellant Texas Commi ssion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in the t ri al court. TCEQ opposes the motion. Howeve r, it is not
appar ent t hat P ublic Citi zen needs permission from thi s Court to dismiss its own case. Under the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e, “[a]t any time befor e the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidenc e other than rebuttal evidenc e, the plaintiff may dismiss a case , or take a non-suit, which shall be
enter ed in the minutes.” Tex. R. Civ. P

. 1 6 2

. R ule 162 is applicable here beca use this is an interlocutory appea l from the trial court’s denial of TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction. See University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackm on , 195 S.W

. 3 d 9 8 , 100 (Tex. 2006) (percuria m). Be cause the trial court g ener ally does not have discretion to ref use to dismiss a suit, Public Citi zen has the absolute rig ht to dismiss its claims. See C T L / T h o mp s on, LLC v. Starwood
Homeowne r’s Ass’n , 390 S.W .3d 299, 299 (Tex. 2013) (per curia m). 1
Neve rtheless, beca

use Public Citi zen h as soug ht permission from this Court to dismiss its suit below, we abate this appea l for th i rt y day s for the sole purpose of allowing Public Citi zen to dismiss its claims ag ainst TCEQ in the trial court. Public Citi zen shall file in this Court proof of its dismiss al or nonsuit on or befor e Aug ust 15, 2013. I f such proof is not filed in this Court by that date, this appea l will be reinstated. Having decide d to abate this appea l, we do n o t re ac h Public Ci tiz en’s motion to dismi ss at this ti me. Tex. R. C iv. P. 47.1.

Be fore J ustices Rose, Goodwin, and F ield Abated Filed: Jul y

16, 2013

Although a nonsuit may not prejudice the rig hts of an adver s e p ar ty to be hear d on its 1 pending claims, TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovere ign immunit y is not a cl ai m for aff irmative relief that survives nonsuit. See CTL /Thompson, LLC v. Starwood Homeowne r’s Ass’n , 390 S.W .3d 299, 300–01 (Tex. 2013) (per curia m); University of Tex. Med. Bran ch a t Ga lveston v. Estate of Black

mon , 195 S.W .3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006) (per curia m). 2