alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022011EN.01002402.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Alkattan v Council

(Case T-218/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial - Error of assessment - Determination of listing criteria)

(2022/C 11/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Waseem Alkattan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Waseem Alkattan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Waseem Alkattan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
Exhibit 13.2

                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of Golden State Petro (IOM I-B) PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kate Blankenship, the Principal 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 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 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date:  June 24, 2007


/s/ Kate Blankenship
-----------------------------
    Kate Blankenship
    Principal Financial Officer
Kunta Kinte PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-329

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
N.R., Mother of T.R. and M.J., Minor Children, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent.

No. 1D19-27

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
Case 3:03-cv-02650-B Document 87 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 783
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 162 

To provide for a right of action against Federal employees for violations 

of First Amendment rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. HAGEMAN (for herself, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. NEHLS, 

Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CRANE, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. OGLES, Mr. CLINE, and 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for a right of action against Federal employees 

for violations of First Amendment rights. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Amendment Ac5 countability Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 162 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

2 FOR VIOLATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT 

3 RIGHTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A Federal employee who, under 

5 color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

6 usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be sub7 jected, any citizen of the United States or any person 

8 within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any 

9 rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First 

10 Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an ac11 tion at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 

12 redress. 

13 (b) EXCEPTION.—This section does not authorize a 

14 Federal employee to bring a suit against their Federal em15 ployer or the Federal Government for conduct that is with16 in the scope of the employment relationship. 

17 (c) ATTORNEY’S FEES.—In any action or proceeding 

18 to enforce this Act, the court, in its discretion, may allow 

19 the prevailing party, other than the United States, a rea20 sonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. 

21 (d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Federal 

22 employee’’ means an individual, other than the President 

23 or the Vice President, who occupies a position in any agen24 cy or instrumentality of the executive branch (including 

25 any independent agency). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 162 IH

1 (e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this Act or 

2 the application of a provision of this Act to any person 

3 or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remain4 der of this Act, and the application of the provisions to 

5 any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KELLWIN ORLANDO GREEN, )

(ID # 833953), )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:03-CV-1424-K

) 

WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions )

Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER OF THE COURT ON RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c), the Court

hereby finds and orders:

COA: 

 

(X) a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Court hereby adopts and

incorporates by reference the Order Denying Motion Under Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b), alternatively, Construing Rule 60(b) Motion as a

Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Order of Dismissal, filed

on March 18, 2015, in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show

that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the Court was correct in

denying the motion under Rule 60(b) in part, and alternatively construing

it as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Signed April 15 , 2015. th

______________________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01424-K Document 75 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID 580
Eddie T. NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Fannie Mae is making progress.

Since Fannie Mae entered to build a sustainable housing finance
conservatorship, we have helped to system for the future. We are helping
stabilize America’s housing market homeowners in distress and enabling
and made significant progress in families to buy, refinance, or rent a
supporting the recovery and helping home.

Since 2009, we’ve Improved our financial
performance and we’re making a difference in people’s lives.

We’re strengthening our book of business

and changing the industry.

“LEGACY” BOOK
Loans acquired

pre-2009

STRONG PROFITABLE

“NEW” BOOK
Loans acquired since 2009, with
stronger standards, make up a
growing share of our overall book.

SINGLE-FAMILY

Seer By ainEse We help homeowners
who are facing hardship.

We work with lenders Our efforts enable families in distress to

keep their homes or avoid foreclosure.

to offer access to affordable
mortgage credit.

The share of single-family loans we hold or
guarantee that are seriously delinquent (SDQ)
has declined 16 consecutive quarters.

approximately

1.6M

loan workouts
since 2009

more than more than

1.2M 355,000

home foreclosure

retention alternatives
solutions

'
as of 3/31/14 ss

(Substantially lower than :
private market levels) :

SDQ loans are those on which homeowners
are 90+ days past due in making mortgage
payments or that are in the foreclosure process.

We enable families to buy, refinance, or rent a home.

This financing has enabled:
Since 2009, TTT
we have provided more than: BOREEEE
. . BRRRRREE
$4.1 Trillion 2ReE 2.3

million g million

in liquidity to the mortgage market

home mortgage
purchases refinancings rental units

Our profits go back to
the American people.

The country invested
$116.1 billion
in Fannie Mae
from 2009 to 2012
in dividends as
oe $5.3B of June 30, 2014 TT
For more information, see our 2014 First Quarter Form 10-Q,

P| FannieMae filed with the SEC on May 8, 2014.

We reported our 9th consecutive
quarterly profit in Q1 2014.

Fannie Mae expects
to have paid Treasury

approximately
$126.8 billion _

Dividends do not offset prior draws.

ry
PROG RESS Data as of or through March 31, 2014, cS TER EH Eu ESE
---

Exhibit 13.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Madison Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: April 11, 2012  “Chet Idziszek”Chet IdziszekPresident and Chief Executive Officer


---
# C_2020279EN.01003401.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Skatteverket v Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag

(Case C-248/20)

(2020/C 279/45)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag

Question referred

Is it compatible with the VAT Directive, (1) in particular with Articles 137, 168, 184 to 187, 189 and 192 thereof, that a property owner, who opted for taxation of the construction of a building and who has deducted the input tax paid on the acquisitions relating to the building project, must immediately repay the total amount of input tax, together with interest, on the ground that the liability for tax ceases by reason of the discontinuance of the construction project before the building is completed and that there is therefore no letting?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
      connection with the Annual Report of Trend Mining Company (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas Loucks,
      Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





February
      1, 2006







/s/
        Thomas A. Loucks


Thomas
      A.
      Loucks


Principal
      Executive Officer
# C_2018083EN.01000901.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — Verus Eood v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Maquet GmbH

(Case C-101/17 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark LUCEO - Declaration of invalidity))

(2018/C 083/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Verus Eood (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Maquet GmbH (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | Verus Eood shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Verus Eood shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

1

---
Mary HEKTNER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, and Sedgwick CMS, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D18-3792

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Kevin Lenard WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Centale, Inc. (the Company) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period  ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 20, 2006 /s/ Jon DeYoung Jon DeYoung (Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
Anthony JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3738

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
David LUCIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2550

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021481EN.01002702.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)

(Case T-636/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)

(2021/C 481/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 (Case R 1016/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 189 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the 

leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 189 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securities and Ex3 change Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Rev4 ocation Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX6 CHANGE COMMISSION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3304 of title 40, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(e) LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX11 CHANGE COMMISSION.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, on and after the date of enactment of this 

13 subsection, the Securities and Exchange Commission may 

14 not lease general purpose office space. The Administrator 

15 may lease such space for the Securities and Exchange 

16 Commission under section 585 and this chapter.’’. 

17 (b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

18 The amendment made by subsection (a) may not be con19 strued to invalidate or otherwise affect a lease entered into 

20 by the Securities and Exchange Commission before the 

21 date of enactment of this Act. 

22 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT LEASING AUTHORITIES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the 

24 United States shall submit to the Committee on Transpor25 tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, 

26 the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
3 

•HR 189 EH

1 Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 

2 Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the review 

3 described in subsection (b). 

4 (b) REVIEW.—The Comptroller General shall com5 plete a review under which the Comptroller General shall 

6 update the 2016 report of the Comptroller General (GAO– 

7 16–648) with a specific focus on the following: 

8 (1) Updating the information included in Ap9 pendix II: Federal Entities That Reported Having 

10 Independent Leasing Authority for Domestic Offices 

11 and Warehouses of such report. 

12 (2) Determining to what extent Federal entities 

13 with independent leasing authorities have had such 

14 authorities rescinded or amended and the number 

15 and amount of office and warehouse space such enti16 ties lease. 

17 (3) Determining to what extent have agencies 

18 with independent leasing authority utilized the Gen19 eral Services Administration for leasing, including 

20 utilization of delegation of authority. 
4 

•HR 189 EH

1 (4) Identifying progress made on implementing 

2 the recommendations in such report. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 13, 

2025. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 189 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate 

change Commission, and for other purposes. the leasing authority of the Securities and Ex-
Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID 625
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID 626
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID 627
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID 628
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID 629
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID 630
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID 631
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID 632
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID 633
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00760-M Document 43 Filed 12/06/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID 634
#### Clyde B. Elliott, *Appellant,*v. Charles John Ilsley Eames, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 25, 1927.

*Baxter, Byrd & Walton*and *Evans & Merslton,*for'Appellant ;

*M. Lewis Sail,*for Appelee.

Per Curiam.

In this case appellant appealed from an order overruling the general demurrer to first amended bill of complaint. Appellee entered cross appeal to order of the chancellor sustaining the demurrer to the amended bill of complaint. The entry of cross appeal was more than sis months after the entry of the interlocutory order sought thereby to be reviewed. The appellee in brief filed abandoned cross appeal.

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.
Case 2:99-cv-00045-J Document 175 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1887