alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017038EN.01003302.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 16 December 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission

(Case T-826/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Contract staff - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2017/C 038/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luis Javier Casasnovas Bernad (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 27 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract.

Operative part of the order

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.

---
EX PARTE Eddie Mitchell BROWN

CR-16-0665

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,040
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,894
<INVENTORY>                                     59,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,496
<PP&E>                                         454,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 659,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,264
<BONDS>                                        404,369
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           79,739
<PREFERRED>                                         38
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   659,862
<SALES>                                      1,434,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,454,624
<CGS>                                        1,051,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,051,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               365,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,082
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 99
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        99
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (12.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (12.96)


</TABLE>
Motion for Detention - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

TERRY ANDREW NELSON 

NO. 4:04-CR-090-A 

MOTION FOR DETENTION

 The United States moves for pretrial detention of defendant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§3142(e) and (f). 

 1. Eligibility of Case. This case is eligible for a detention order because the case 

involves (check all that apply): 

 Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §3156); 

 Maximum sentence life imprisonment or death 

 10 + year drug offense 

 Felony, with two prior convictions in above categories 

 Serious risk defendant will flee 

 Serious risk obstruction of justice 

 X Felony involving a minor victim 

 Felony involving a firearm, destructive device, or any other 

 dangerous weapon 

 Felony involving a failure to register (18 U.S.C. § 2250) 

 2. Reason for Detention. The Court should detain defendant because there are no 

Case 4:04-cr-00090-A Document 63 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID 221
Motion for Detention - Page 2

conditions of release which will reasonably assure (check one or both): 

 Defendant’s appearance as required 

 X Safety of any other person and the community 

 3. Rebuttable Presumption. The United States will invoke the rebuttable 

presumption against defendant because : 

 Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10+ year drug 

 offense or firearms offense, 18 U.S.C. §924(c) 

 Probable cause to believe defendant committed a federal crime of 

 terrorism, 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5) 

 Probable cause to believe defendant committed an offense involving 

 a minor, 18 U.S.C. §§1201, 2251 

 Previous conviction for “eligible” offense committed while on 

 pretrial bond 

 4. Time For Detention Hearing. The United States requests the Court conduct the 

detention hearing, 

 At first appearance 

 X After continuance of 3 days (not more than 3). 

 

Case 4:04-cr-00090-A Document 63 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID 222
Motion for Detention - Page 3

 DATED this 14th day of May, 2014. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 SARAH R. SALDAÑA 

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 

 s/Christopher Stokes 

 Christopher Stokes 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Bar No.19267600 

 1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor 

 Dallas, Texas 75242-1699 

 Telephone: 214-659-8600 

 Facsimile: 214-659-8812 

 Email: Christopher Stokes 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for the 

defendant in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on this 14th day of 

May, 2014. 

 s/Christopher Stokes 

 Christopher Stokes 

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:04-cr-00090-A Document 63 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID 223
The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri, to who m the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3311

___________ Juanita Whitson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Union Electric Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 6, 1998 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Juan ita Whitson appeals from the district court & s dismissal of her complaint . 1 After reviewing the record and the parties & briefs, we conclude that the judgment of the district court was correct, and that an extended opinion would have no precedentia l value. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT .
Lisa Michelle DILLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2900

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017038EN.01004602.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/46

---

Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

(Case T-860/16)

(2017/C 038/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘mycard2go’– Application for registration No 14 303 465

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 in Case R 281/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case to the defendant to take further steps in the registration proceedings for EU trade mark 014303465; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case to the defendant to take further steps in the registration proceedings for EU trade mark 014303465;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 3:04-cr-00328-D Document 12 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 23
Case 3:04-cr-00328-D Document 12 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 24
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 157 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 157

To prohibit a single bill or joint resolution presented by Congress to 
  the President from containing multiple subjects and to require the 
           equal application of laws to Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit a single bill or joint resolution presented by Congress to 
  the President from containing multiple subjects and to require the 
           equal application of laws to Members of Congress.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption 
Reform of Congress Act'' or the ``CLEAN Congress Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING MULTIPLE SUBJECTS IN SINGLE BILL.

    (a) In General.--Each bill, order, resolution, or vote submitted by 
Congress to the President under section 7 of article I of the 
Constitution of the United States shall embrace no more than one 
subject, and that subject shall be clearly and descriptively expressed 
in the title of the bill, order, resolution or vote.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the 
One Hundred Nineteenth Congress and each succeeding Congress.

SEC. 3. REQUIRING EQUAL APPLICATION OF LAWS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
provision of law that provides an exception in its application to a 
Member of Congress or an employee of the office of a Member of Congress 
shall have no effect.
    (b) Clarification Relating to Exercise of Official or 
Representational Duties.--Subsection (a) shall not be construed to 
apply to provisions of law or rules which permit Members of Congress or 
employees of offices of Members of Congress to carry out official 
duties that are tied directly to lawmaking, including provisions or 
rules permitting Members and employees to enter and use the United 
States Capitol, the United States Capitol grounds, and other buildings 
and facilities.
    (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Member of Congress'' 
means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
Johnny T. ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Victoria BECKER v. Patrick DANLEY

2160379

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Order entered July 23, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00060
- CR JOHN ABRA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 76089
- L



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s July 19, 2018 request for appointed counsel. Appellant is currently represented by counsel who filed an Anders brief.
We DENY a

ppellant’s motion. The Court will appoint new counsel for appellant only if it determines there is an arguable issue for appeal. See Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.).
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2016364EN.01002301.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/23

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-440/16)

(2016/C 364/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.

---
Gibson PAUL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017014EN.01004001.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/40

---

Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)

(Case T-754/16)

(2017/C 014/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31/08/16 in Case R 2608/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;

| — | rule that the evidence offered may be submitted; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;

| — | grant the application, annulling the contested decision and refusing the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 088 19, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application, annulling the contested decision and refusing the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 088 19, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 3:04-cv-00750-D Document 149 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2013
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00750-D Document 149 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2014
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00750-D Document 149 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2015
#### Otto Patrick, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. H. G. Darmstadt, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 6, 1927.

*Boss Williams*and *Frank E. Lowman,*for Plaintiff, in Error;

*Heffernan, Johnston & Wideman,*for Defendant in Error.

*1051Per 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 the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P.' J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD H. BLAISDELL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-17793

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00554-LEKBMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Hawaii state prisoner Richard H. Blaisdell appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations in connection with the treatment of his prison trust account. We have

FILED

OCT 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown,

630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Blaisdell’s action against the Hawaii

Department of Public Safety because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the

absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is

named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”). However,

the district court prematurely dismissed the action with prejudice. Accordingly, we

vacate the judgment and remand to permit Blaisdell to voluntarily dismiss his

action if he so chooses. 

Because this appeal does not concern Blaisdell’s ability to proceed in forma

pauperis, we do not consider Blaisdell’s contentions concerning whether a prior

action counts as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 12-17793
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 Quarterly Report of China Sun Group High-Tech Co. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ming
Fen Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.





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 solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and 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.


Date:   October
      15, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Ming
      Fen LiuMing
      Fen LiuChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
EX PARTE James MCINTURFF

1160905 (CR-15-1401)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Case 3:03-cr-00213-M Document 33 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
Mario Martinez GUZMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.