alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00475]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20952; LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-20008 
Declaration of Economic Injury]

Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the 
State of Louisiana

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of Louisiana dated January 3, 2025.
    Incident: Mass Casualty Incident.

DATES: Issued on January 3, 2025.
    Incident Period: January 1, 2025 and continuing.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: October 3, 
2025.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for disaster loans 
may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal https://lending.sba.gov or other locally announced locations. Please contact 
the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
[email protected] or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for 
further assistance.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Parish: Orleans
Contiguous Parishes:
    Louisiana: Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Tammany

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere..      3.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 209520.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Louisiana.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

    Dated: January 3, 2025.
Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-00475 Filed 1-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-31109

STEPHEN MARSHALL GABARICK, etc.; ET AL,

Plaintiffs

v.

LAURIN MARITIME (AMERICA), INCORPORATED; ET AL,

Defendants

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

WHITEFIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED, As owner and Managing 

Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation 

of Liability; LAURIN MARITIME (AMERICA), INCORPORATED, As Owner 

and Managing Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration 

from or Limitation of Liability; LAURIN MARITIME AB; ANGLOATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LIMITED, 

Petitioners – Appellee-Cross Appellants 

v. 

DRD TOWING COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Claimant - Appellee

v. 

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, L.L.C.,

Appellant – Cross-Appellee 

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-31109 Document: 00512496638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2014
No. 12-31109

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, L.L.C., As Owner of Barge DM-932, 

Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability,

Petitioner – Appellant Cross-Appellee

v.

LAURIN MARITIME AB; WHITEFIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED; 

ANGLO ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LIMITED; LAURIN MARITIME 

(AMERICA), INCORPORATED, 

Movants – Appellee-Cross Appellants

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

DRD TOWING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, as Owner Pro Hac Vice or 

Alleged owner Pro Hac Vice of the M/V Mel Oliver,

Petitioner – Appellee 

v. 

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, L.L.C.,

Claimant – Appellant-Cross-Appellee

v. 

LAURIN MARITIME AB; WHITEFIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED; 

ANGLO ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LIMITED; LAURIN MARITIME 

(AMERICA), INCORPORATED, 

Movants – Appellee-Cross Appellants

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

AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, L.L.C., As Owner of the M/V Mel Oliver 

Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability,

Petitioner – Appellant-Cross Appellee

v.

2

 Case: 12-31109 Document: 00512496638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2014
No. 12-31109

LAURIN MARITIME (AMERICA), INCORPORATED; LAURIN MARITIME 

AB; WHITEFIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED; ANGLO ATLANTIC 

STEAMSHIP LIMITED,

Movants – Appellee-Cross Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 08-4007 Consolidated Cases B-4 

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have considered the thorough briefing, heard oral argument, and 

analyzed the extensive record in this case. For substantially the reasons set 

forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we AFFIRM. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

3

 

 Case: 12-31109 Document: 00512496638 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2014
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 Quarterly Report of Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief 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:



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.





| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                    
| |     | David J. Curd
Chief Executive Officer



November 17, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSH WHITAKER, MONIQUE

JANNETTE ANd LESLIE GREER,

Plaintiffs,

WEST VILLAGE LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP ANd PPC/IMA

INTOWN VILLAGE LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP ET AL.,

Defendants/Cross-Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs.

CNIL ACTION NO.

3:03-CV-0411-P

CLASS ACTION

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

PATRICIA SAPP,

Plaintiff,

V.

CWS APARTMENT HOMES, L.L.C.,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

CryIL ACTION NO.

3:06-CV-1018-P

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

ORDER

On March g ,2011 , 

the Court held a status conference in these cases. At the conference, the

parties agreed to file a status report with the Court no later than March 3I,2011. To date, no status

report has been filec.

The Court instructs the Parties to submit their status report within ten (10) days from the date

of this order.

It is SO ORDERED , tnis / 3A dav of April 201 1 

'

JO(GE A. SOLIS

I.INITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00411-P Document 321 Filed 04/13/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3037
# C_2021028EN.01001102.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 September 2020 — Admiral Gaming Network Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-475/20)

(2021/C 28/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Admiral Gaming Network Srl

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU?

| 2. | Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?

---
Danny Christopher LIPSCOMB v. STATE

CR-16-0688

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135475 & (20) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135475 

 COA: 279220 
 Wayne CC: 03-006927-01 

J. D. FULLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 5, 2007 

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

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to add issues is DENIED. 

p0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.28  INTANGIBLE ASSIGNMENT  THIS INTANGIBLE ASSIGNMENT dated as of September 30, 2007, by COMPUTER CONTACT SERVICE, INC., a California corporation (the "Assignor") in favor of PARK STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company (the "Assignee").  WHEREAS, the Assignor has entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 30, 2007 (the "Purchase Agreement"), pursuant to which the Assignor is obligated to transfer certain of its business assets to the Assignee; and  WHEREAS, the Assignor desires to transfer, convey and assign to Assignee the intangible assets of the Assignor which are included in the "Purchased Assets," as defined in the Purchase Agreement.  NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Assignor hereby conveys, transfers and assigns to the Assignee, as of 5:01 P.M. (PDT) on September 30, 2007, all of the Assignor's right, title and interest in, to all of the Assets of the Assignor, as defined in the Purchase Agreement, including, without limitation, all intangible property (collectively, the "Transferred Assets").  Other than as specifically stated in this Intangible Assignment or in the Purchase Agreement, the Assignor is not transferring, conveying or assigning any right or interest in or to any of the Retained Assets, as defined in the Purchase Agreement.  The Assignor agrees that it will, at the request the Assignee, execute and deliver to the Assignee all other and further instruments necessary to vest in the Assignee full title, right and interest in or to the Transferred Assets.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused its duly authorized member to execute this Intangible Assignment on the day and year first above written.   COMPUTER CONTACT SERVICE, INC., a California corporation    by: /s/ Stan Harper Stan Harper, President
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Rack Room Shoe s , Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00470

- CV

Trial court case number: 69664

- B

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

Relator Rack Room Shoes, Inc. filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that we stay the trial court’s consideration of real party in interest’s “ Motion for P artial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses of Pre

- Existing an d Subsequent Conditions” pending our consideration of Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’ s motion is GRANTED.

W e ORDER that proceedings in the trial court be stayed pending resolution of the petition for a writ of mandamus

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.10(b). Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10( c ).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ J a ne Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 11, 2014
#### T. Kroier, *Appellant,*v. W. Kroier and L. M. Hiers, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 5, 1928.

*B. A. Gregory,*for Appellant;

*Edwin L. Bryan,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Charles E. TATE, a/k/a Tate Charles E., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
# C_2022284EN.01002702.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — OG v EDA

(Case T-632/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - EDA staff - Vacancy notice - Head of Unit post - Rejection of application - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Objectivity - Principle of sound administration - Infringement of the vacancy notice - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-material harm)

(2022/C 284/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OG (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Defence Agency (represented by: C. Ribeiro, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Defence Agency (EDA) of 13 December 2019 by which she was not placed on the reserve list for the position of Head of the IT Unit in the Corporate Services Directorate and, secondly, compensation for the harm she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders OG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

         In connection with the Quarterly report of Capital Growth Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott Allen, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: May 24, 2004

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

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2021182EN.01002002.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — M. A. v État belge

(Case C-112/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 5 - Return decision - Father of a minor child who is a citizen of the European Union - Taking into account the best interests of the child at the time of the adoption of the return decision)

(2021/C 182/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to take due account of the best interests of the child before adopting a return decision accompanied by an entry ban, even where the person to whom that decision is addressed is not a minor but his or her father.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
# C_2017121EN.01003401.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Janssen-Cases v Commission

(Case T-688/16 R)

((Interim proceedings - Civil service - Vacancy notice - Commission’s ombudsman - Application for a stay in execution - No urgency))

(2017/C 121/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking a stay in the execution of the Commission’s decision of 15 June 2016, appointing Mr X. as the Commission’s ombudsman, with effect as of 1 October 2016.

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. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Chelsey FERGUSON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY-CRIMINAL

2017-CT-00912-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 19, 2019 Closed: April 12, 2019

Motion Desc: Appellee Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - (-)science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

faq        July 8, 2017        What is a glacier?

faq        July 8, 2017        Where on Earth are temperate glaciers located?

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Current page            2