alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30565

Summary Calendar

__________________

RONALD J. BALLARD,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE MCELVEEN, DENNIS WING,

GAIL LAURENTS, and MR. LEBLANC,

 Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1537

_____________________________________

November 13, 1995

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald J. Ballard appealed the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint for failure to comply with the court's order. We held

Ballard's appeal in abeyance pending the district court's ruling

on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The district court has

since ruled, granting Ballard's motion and vacating its

dismissal. Because there is no longer a final judgment from
O R D E R 

No. 94-30565

-2-

which to appeal, Ballard's appeal is DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291.
Dennis L. RUSHING v. DISCOVER BANK

2160283

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2022244EN.01002401.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission

(Case T-4/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Request for reimbursement - Financial audit - OLAF investigation - Conflict of interest on account of family or emotional ties - Principle of good faith - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of marital status - Legitimate expectations - Action for annulment - Debit notes - Acts inseparable from the contract - Act not open to challenge - Right to effective judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 244/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: Ł. Stępkowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, primarily, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, a declaration that the contractual claim of the European Commission set out in six debit notes issued on 13 November 2019 for an aggregate amount of EUR 180 893,90, comprising a principal amount of EUR 164 449 and damages of EUR 16 444,90, is non-existent, and an order that the Commission repay the amounts contained in those debit notes, and, in the alternative, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 12 November 2019, which was addressed to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz — Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
#### Helen Pond Warner, *Complainant-Appellant,*v. Fanny J. Thomas, *Defendant-Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 21, 1927.

*George W. Tedder,*for Appellant;

*Heffernan & Hoffman,*and *Farrington & Lockhart,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.1

Exhibit 11.1 - Computation of Earnings per Share

|                                      |  |      |             |  
|------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----------- | -
|                                      |  | 2007 |            
|                                      |  |      |            
|Basic:                                |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Net Loss                              |  | $    | (796,960    | )
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Average
 shares:                      |  |      |             |  
|Common shares issued                  |  |      | 101,199,146 |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Average shares outstanding            |  |      | 97,697,796  |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Net income
 per common share, basic   |  | $    | (0.01       | )
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Diluted:                              |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Net Loss                              |  | $    | (796,960    | )
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Average
 shares:                      |  |      |             |  
|Common shares issued                  |  |      | 114,844,790 |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Average shares outstanding            |  |      | 97,697,796  |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|                                      |  |      |             |  
|Net income
 per common share, diluted |  | $    | (0.01       | )
|                                      |  |      |             |  

---
How to Register as an Authorized Responsible Person (RP) in 

the PRD

NOTE: If you are a part 119 operator, you must be a part 119 position holder such as 

Director of Operations to be approved. If you are not a part 119 operator, you must hold 

an equivalent management position with your operator. Your request will be checked 

against the FAA database, operation specifications, management specifications, or other 

similar FAA documents. Each operator is only allowed to have a single RP at a time.

1) From prd.faa.gov, click on the Tools button:

2) Login via MyAccess. If you already have a MyAccess account, do not create an 

additional MyAccess accounts as you only need one. If you are unable to create a new 

MyAccess account, contact 9-AMC-AVS-PRDsupport@faa.gov for assistance.
3) If you are a new user, you will be taken to the new user registration screen. If you 

already have other roles in the PRD, you will need to select the link shown near the top of 

the page to add another role.

4) When the registration page appears, complete the form as indicated. Note these tips:

• Leave the Proxy box empty

• In the Operator box, start typing your company name, it should appear in the list. 

Select the correct entry to select it. If you are a part 119 operator, select the entry 

which has your 4 character designator and ignore any other listings. If you are not 

a part 119 operator, and you see multiple listings, select the listing which has your 

primary base region in the parenthesis.

• For the role, select Authorized Responsible Person

5) Your registration will be reviewed by the FAA. They may need to contact you for 

information. They will email you at the email address you entered in step 4 to let you 

know the status of the application. Once approved, you will have all the roles you need to 

fully use the PRD. Do not apply for any additional roles.

Note: When accessing the PRD to view records, you will be logging in as an Authorized 

Consumer. You will not see Authorized Responsible Person in the list but that is normal.

If you have any additional questions, email 9-AMC-AVS-PRDsupport@faa.gov
Jorge A. FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Maury LEYVA-FERNANDEZ, Appellee.

No. 3D18-455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-5207 September Term, 2022

1:22-cv-00699-ABJ

Filed On: October 6, 2022

Naum I. Volovets,

Appellant

v.

William J. Clinton, Former U.S. President and

Kristina A. Kvien, Former Charge d' Affaires

e.i. of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Pillard and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement thereto filed by appellant. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing

and the response to this court’s order filed on August 1, 2022, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court order filed June 22, 2022, be

affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case based on appellant’s failure to

identify a valid basis for the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “It is

axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the

existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463

U.S. 206, 212 (1983); see Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C. Cir.

1984) (sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against public officials sued in their

official capacity absent a specific waiver of immunity). Insofar as appellant seeks

monetary relief, he has identified no such waiver that would allow his claims to go

forward. And insofar as he seeks relief based on the purported “criminal” nature of his

allegations, his suit fails because, as a private party, he cannot bring claims under

criminal law or seek to compel the criminal investigation or prosecution of the

defendants. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“a private citizen

lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”);
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-5207 September Term, 2022

Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (the

power to decide when to investigate and prosecute lies in the Executive Branch and

judicial authority is “non-existent” when the court is asked to intrude into the process of

prosecutorial decisionmaking by a party without standing to raise the claim). Further,

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended

complaint because appellant has not shown the proffered amendment would have

cured the jurisdictional flaws in the suit. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205,

1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
# Sheet1

Type I, II, III Equipment/Building, and IV Waivers Open for Comment (as of June 4, 2024)	

Page &P of &N
#### Britt Pringle, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 14, 1927.

*Edgar W. Waybright,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and if. *E. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that *1125the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**


**Rule
      15d-14(b) and Section 906 of**


**the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




November 6, 2006
            By:
/s/
                John H. Homier
              John
                H. Homier
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Keith Conrad, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 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 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: August 24, 2006 | By: | SignedE. Keith Conrad
Keith Conrad
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------



---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00884-CV

FMO MEDIA LLC,

Appellant

v.

CLARITY MORTGAGE LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CV00378

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2024

DISMISSED

On December 6, 2023, we abated this appeal to the trial court and ordered the trial court to 

issue a written order that finds the date when appellant FMO Media, LLC or its attorney first either 

received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the default judgment was signed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 4.2(c). We further ordered the trial court to cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

its order to be filed in this court, which, to date, has not occurred.

On February 22, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion 

states that the parties have reached a settlement agreement, that all required terms of the settlement 
04-23-00884-CV

- 2 -

have been consummated, and that appellee has filed a notice of nonsuit with prejudice in the trial 

court. In light of the foregoing, we reinstate this appeal to our docket, and we subsequently grant 

the motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 42.1(a). Costs of the appeal are taxed 

against appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

I, Ray Brunner, certify that: 

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state 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 report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer 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 registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: February 20, 2007
William J. BRANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-857

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2020359EN.01000901.xml

| 26.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Solar Ileias Bompaina AE against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2020 in Case T-143/19, Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

(Case C-429/20 P)

(2020/C 359/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (represented by: A. Metaxas, dikigoros, A. Bartosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare the application to be admissible and refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application to be admissible and refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds.

First, the General Court carried out an erroneous legal analysis of the facts underlying the application, which results from the Court ignoring the contents of the complaint lodged by the appellant despite the fact that it had understood these contents perfectly well.

Second, the General Court applied a likewise erroneous standard of proof.

---