alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No . 07 - 21 - 000 12 - CV

________________________ MARGARET KINSELLA , INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE EMERALD RESTAU RA NT , APPELLANT V. KENT SPORTS HOLDINGS, L . P . , APPELLEE

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. C - 1 - CV - 19 - 004937 ; Honorable Todd T. Wong , Presiding April 15 , 20 2 1 

### ORDER OF ABATEMENT Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS , JJ. Pending before this c ourt is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Briefing Schedule , requesting that we extend the appellate briefing deadlines by ninety days to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions. I n the interest of conservation of judicial resources, we abate the appeal , sua sponte, until July 12 , 2021. All appellate deadlines, including the pending deadline to file A ppellan t ’s brief, are suspended. The2 case will be removed from our active docket and treated as a suspended case until July 12 , 2021, when the case will be reinstated. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 2, 43.6; Mesa Water, L.P. v. Tex. Water Dev. Bd. , No. 07 - 11 - 00153 - CV, 201 1 Tex. App. LEXIS 5311, at *2 - 3 (Tex. App. — Amarillo July 13, 2011, order) (per curiam). If any development arises that might cause the c ourt to reinstate the case prior to the July 12 , 2021 reinstatement date, the parties are directed to immediately advis e the c ourt of the development. O n reinstatement of the case , the c ourt will entertain a motion to further abate the appeal should it become necessar y . It is so ordered. Per Curiam
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31454]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to 
the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by mail, Federal 
Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20573. 
Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 
days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, and the 
Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on 
agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreement are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
[email protected].
    Agreement No.: 201443.
    Agreement Name: Maersk/Network Shipping Ltd. Ad Hoc Space Charter 
Agreement.
    Parties: Maersk A/S; Network Shipping, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to charter space to/
from one another on an ad hoc basis in the trades between ports in 
Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guatemala on the one hand and ports in 
California on the other hand.
    Proposed Effective Date: 02/03/2025.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/88588.

    Dated: December 26, 2024.
Alanna Beck,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-31454 Filed 12-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
```
Lisa Seal FRIGON, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Adler Berriman Seal v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES, INC., Deborah Dubois Seal, Aaron Seal, Christina Seal Warmack, and Dean Berriman Seal

NO. 2018-C-1868

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

*897Denied.
# C_2020348EN.01002102.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/21

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2020 — KN v EESC

(Case T-377/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - Civil service - Member of the EESC - Harassment - OLAF investigation - EESC Bureau decision - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 348/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, I. Pouli and A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of enforcement of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 by which the applicant was discharged from all supervisory and personnel management activities and, second, provisional suspension of the delivery of that decision to the institutions of the European Union and certain bodies of the Member States.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
James L. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0080

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Chad Landry KITTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

Affirmed.
Case 2:03-cv-00366-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-00366-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-00366-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-00366-J Document 1 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit
13.2


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





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of EXFO Electro-Optical Engineering Inc., hereby
certifies, that:





1.
            The
      Annual Report of Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2009 of EXFO
      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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      EXFO.








Date:           November
25, 2009











/s/Pierre
Plamondon


Pierre
Plamondon, CA


Vice-President
Finance


and Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part
of the Report or as separate disclosure document.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 783 

To correct the engrossment of the amendment of the Senate to S. 2073. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To correct the engrossment of the amendment of the Senate 

to S. 2073. 

1 Resolved, That in the engrossment of the amendment 

2 of the Senate to S. 2073, an Act to amend title 31, United 

3 States Code, to require agencies to include a list of out4 dated or duplicative reporting requirements in annual 

5 budget justifications, and for other purposes, the Sec6 retary of the Senate shall amend the title of the bill so 

7 as to read ‘‘An Act to protect the safety and privacy of 

8 children on the internet.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT TAM,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-01343-SB-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles, 

United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Tam pleaded guilty to embezzlement, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 657 (West Supp. 2011). The U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009) called for a sentencing 

range of thirty-three to forty-one months, and Tam received a 

thirty-month sentence. Tam now appeals, claiming that the 

district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence 

because it failed to provide an adequate explanation for the 

sentence imposed. We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable where the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) 

sentencing factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the 

parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.

at 49-50. The district court is not required to “robotically 

tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v. 

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the 

district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized 

assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it. 

This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, 

but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case 

at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” 
3

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). 

Upon review, we conclude that the district court 

provided an adequate individualized assessment, taking into 

account counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tam’s thirty-month 

sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 

(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review for properly 

preserved procedural sentencing error); see also Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 46.

We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001116734
<NAME> UNITED ENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          50,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                    84,753
<INVENTORY>                                    732,601
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,150,696
<PP&E>                                          26,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,372,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          796,301
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       158,302
<OTHER-SE>                                     417,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,372,326
<SALES>                                      1,573,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,573,095
<CGS>                                        1,071,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  470,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,773
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 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 amended annual report of SINO ASSURANCE INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Mengyou Tong, Chief Financial 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  By: /s/ Mengyou Tong, Chief Financial Officer  Date: August 9, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS GOMEZ-CARDENAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-71960 

Agency No. A087-744-568 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Gomez-Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-71960 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 

Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference 

is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, 

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Cardenas’ unexhausted contention

as to his opinion about government corruption because he failed to raise it to the 

agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks 

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

The agency did not err in finding that Gomez-Cardenas failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 

1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” 

returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group). Substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Cardenas otherwise 

failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of a 

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 
3 14-71960 

applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, 

Gomez-Cardenas’ withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Gomez-Cardenas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See 

Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1230.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; Voice Speech and Language Fellowship Review.                    

*Date:*                         February 14, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sonia Elena Nanescu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 8300, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-8683,                         *sonia.nanescu@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 2, 2025.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00109 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Troy K. MICKENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022222EN.01000201.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/2

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2022 — Hungary v European Commission

(Case C-185/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by Hungary)

(2022/C 222/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, agents)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Aquilina, agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Hungary shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hungary shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
# C_2021028EN.01002401.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-569/20)

(2021/C 28/38)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

IR

Questions referred

Are Article 8(2)(b) in conjunction with recitals 36 to 39 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and Article 4а(1)(b) in conjunction with recitals 7 to 10 of Framework Decision 2009/299 to be interpreted as covering a case in which the accused person was informed of the list of charges against him, in its original version, and then, due to the fact that he has fled, objectively cannot be informed of the trial and is defended by a lawyer appointed ex officio with whom he has no contact?

If this is answered in the negative: Is a national provision (Article 423(1) and (5) of the NPK), pursuant to which no provision is made for any legal protection against investigative measures carried out in absentia and against a conviction handed down in absentia where the accused person, after having been informed of the original list of charges, is in hiding and therefore could not be informed of the date and place of the trial or of the consequences of non-appearance, consistent with Article 9 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 and Article 4а(3) in conjunction with Article 4a(1)(d) of Framework Decision 2009/299?

If this is answered in the negative: Does Article 9 of Directive 2016/343 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter have direct effect?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 24 Filed 06/21/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 141
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 24 Filed 06/21/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 142