alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020371EN.01001601.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

(Case T-358/20 R)

(Interim measures - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Reimbursement of sums paid - Debit notes - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 371/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of two debit notes issued by the REA on 7 May 2020 requiring payment by the applicant of the sum of EUR 188 477,27 no later than 22 June 2020.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 18 June 2020, Net Technologies Finland v REA (T-358/20 R) is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 18 June 2020, Net Technologies Finland v REA (T-358/20 R) is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
EX PARTE Virgil F. HEIKEN

CR-16-0864

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Covington Cir. Ct.
Exhibit 13.1


 CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned  certifies  that  this  periodic  report  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in this annual report fairly represents,  in all
material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Golden
State Petro (IOM 1-A) PLC.




/s/ Tor Olav Troim
-------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
Director




/s/ Kate Blankenship
-------------------------
Kate Blankenship
Director


Date: June 30, 2005

02089.0007 #582917
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

v. § CRIMINAL NOS. 3:04-CR-114-S 

§ 3:19-CR-202-S 

§ 

ALPHONZO ORA WHORN § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the Court is the report of the psychological evaluation of Defendant Alphonso 

Drawhorn submitted by the Bureau of Prisons, which is dated September 27, 2019, and was filed on 

October 4, 2019 ("Repoti"), Doc. 15. On October 11, 2019, pursuant to this Court's referral, U.S. 

Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver held a competency hearing regarding the Report, at which 

Defendant Salazar offered no objection to the report, no evidence, and no argument. 

No objections have been filed by the Goverrunent or Defendant, thus, the Court has 

reviewed the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendation for plain error. Finding no 

error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge. 

It is ORDERED that the findings in the Report, Doc. 15, regarding competency, are hereby 

adopted. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Alphonzo Drawhorn is competent to proceed to 

the adjudication of the allegations that he violated his conditions of supervised release. 

SO ORDERED, this� 2 ✓.-!1.1--day of UC /) L /4 ,,_.,_ , 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jacob WRIGHT v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00651-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 11, 2019 Closed: May 16, 2019

Certiorari - Denied
R. John Hansman

T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Director, International Center of Air Transportation

Aeronautics and Astronautics

Engineering Systems Division

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

April 24, 2014 

The Honorable Michael P. Huerta

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

Dear Administrator Huerta:

The REDAC full committee meeting was held on April 17. During the meeting the committee had the opportunity 

to meet and discuss NextGen related research and development issues with Michael Whitaker, Ed Bolton and 

Pam Whitley. We also had the opportunity to talk with John Hickey on topics related to Safety as well as Rich 

Swayze and Carl Burleson regarding environmental research. The committee was encouraged by the 

perspective, energy, focus and commitment demonstrated by the leadership team.

The committee did not have any specific high level recommendations but did note that we stand behind prior 

recommendations regarding Unmanned Systems Research, NextGen Con-Ops validation and the potential for the 

FAA to leverage Big Data approaches.

 

I am enclosing the summary detail findings and recommendations from the Spring 2014 meetings of the standing 

REDAC Subcommittees (Aircraft Safety, NAS Operations, Environment and Energy, Airports, and Human 

Factors). 

The REDAC and its subcommittees stand ready to assist the agency in its efforts to modernize the air 

transportation system and to improve the safety, efficiency, and capability of the NAS.

Sincerely,

R. John Hansman

Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 

Enclosure
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December

31, 2019

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00866

- CV

SHO MUHAMMAD , Appellant

V.
GEORGE GILLUM , Appellee
On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No
. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1142083

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 21, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the parties filed a n agreed motion to dismiss the appeal “without prejudice.” The Texas Rules of Appell ate Procedure speak only of a dismissal of an appeal; neither “with prejudice” nor “without prejudice” is appended to the word

“ dismissal

. ” See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We construe the motion as one for voluntary2

dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 42.1(a)(1). So construed, the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant

.
# C_2017249EN.01004902.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/49

---

Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — FK (*1) v Commission

(Case T-816/16 RENV) (1)

(2017/C 249/67)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-87/12).

---
InFO 

Information for Operators 

U.S. Department InFO 08036 

of Transportation DATE 6/3/08 

Federal Aviation

Administration Flight Standards Service 

Washington, DC 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info

An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, 

or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety.

Subject: Teterboro, New Jersey, TEB-5 SID

Purpose: To alert operators departing Teterboro Airport (KTEB) via the TEB-5 Standard 

Instrument Departure (SID) of common errors that lead to deviations from the published altitude 

restrictions. 

Background: Teterboro is part of the complex New York City area airspace. The 

TEB-5 SID is used to route aircraft departing KTEB along a track and at altitudes clear of 

overhead traffic landing at nearby Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR). 

Discussion: Numerous common errors have been voluntarily reported by pilots to the Aviation 

Safety Reporting System (ASRS). These reports are among the reasons that the existing TEB-5 

SID has been exhaustively reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and others. 

However, because of tight constraints on the airspace, the TEB-5 SID remains unchanged and 

achieving the initial level-off altitude remains critical to safety. Recent charting improvements 

have been made on commercial charts to emphasize critical altitude restrictions, as shown in the 

diagram below. Similar improvements are planned for U.S. Government National Aviation 

Charting Organization (NACO) charts. 

Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-810 
Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-810 

The most common failure noted from the ASRS reports involves failure to level off at the initial 

level-off altitude of 1500’ before reaching the TEB 4.5 DME. Reasons given for this failure 

include: 

• Altitude alerter set to an incorrect altitude 

• Inadequate crew briefings (CRM) 

• Crew was rushed prior to departure 

• Crew was fatigued 

• Crew was confused due to high traffic volume 

Setting the altitude alerter to the initial altitude requiring a level-off is one operating procedure 

known to be effective in conducting departures of all kinds. Individual operators may consider a 

implementing a further operating procedure specifically restricting the TEB-5 departure to be 

flown only by the captain. 

Recommended Action: Directors of operations, fractional ownership program managers, 

trainers of pilots, and pilots themselves should be aware of the high number of reported 

deviations concerning the TEB-5 SID. They should collaborate to ensure that standard operating 

procedures are developed and explicitly stated in the training programs and manuals used by 

pilots, specifying briefing requirements and pilots’ actions in conducting all SIDs. 

For More Information About the Content of This InFO: Contact John Reilly, Aviation 

Safety Inspector, john.e.reilly@faa.gov (718-553-3225) or Joe Foresto, Eastern Region FAA 

Safety Team Manager, joseph.foresto@faa.gov (718-553.3235).
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00238]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-12519-02-OA]

Rescheduling Meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the EPA 
hereby provides notice of a meeting of the Local Government Advisory 
Committee (LGAC) on the date and time described below. This meeting 
will be open to the public. For information on public attendance and 
participation, please see the registration information under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: The LGAC will have a virtual meeting January 10th, from 3 p.m.-4 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. This virtual meeting is being rescheduled 
from January 9th at 2 p.m., for which notice was provided on December 
23, 2024 (2024-30752; 89 FR 104535). This is due to the closure of 
executive departments and agencies of the federal government on January 
9th as a mark of respect for President Carter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Sylvester, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO) of the Local Government Advisory Committee, at 
[email protected] or 202-564-1279.
    Information on Accessibility: For information on access or services 
for individuals requiring accessibility accommodations, please send an 
email to [email protected]. To request accommodation, please do so five (5) 
business days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as 
possible to process your request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Content: The LGAC will discuss a welcome letter to the incoming 
administration, highlighting the committee's value to the Agency and 
where the committee can best help the Administration achieve its 
priorities. Meeting materials and recommendations will be posted online 
closer to the meeting dates.
    Registration: The meeting will be held virtually through Microsoft 
Teams. Members of the public who wish to participate should register by 
contacting Frank Sylvester, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the 
Local Government Advisory Committee, at [email protected] or 
202-564-1279 at least 24 hours of the meeting start time. The agenda 
and other supportive meeting materials will be available online at 
https://www.epa.gov/ocir/local-government-advisory-committee-lgac and 
can be obtained by written request to the DFO. In the event of 
cancellation for unforeseen circumstances, please contact the DFO or 
check the website above for reschedule information.

Francis Sylvester,
Designated Federal Officer, Office of Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Relations.
[FR Doc. 2025-00238 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Carl Arthur PERRY v. STATE

CR-16-0629

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND SUPPORT FUND, a/k/a Community Charity Advancement, Inc., and the Fundraising Center, Petitioners, v. Matthew D. WEIDNER, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-3121

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Grace EDELMAN, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 24, 2019]

Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Maureen G. Pearcy of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Coral Gables, for appellee.

**ON CONCESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

Appellant Grace Edelman filed a claim for breach of contract under a homeowner's insurance policy that she purchased from Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Citizens filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence in support of Citizens' summary judgment motion was not properly authenticated in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). In response, Citizens "concedes that the evidence in support of [its] summary judgment motion was not properly authenticated in compliance with [FRCP] 1.510(c)." Thus, Citizens agrees with Appellant that "the trial court's ruling cannot stand."

"[I]t is apodictic that summary judgments may not be granted at any type of hearing, absent the existence of 'summary judgment evidence' in the record." *Eco-Tradition, LLC v. Pennzoil-Quaker State Co.* , 137 So.3d 495, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting *TRG-Brickell Point NE, Ltd v. Wajsblat* , 34 So.3d 53, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ). We accept Citizens' concession of error, and thus vacate the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.

*Reversed and Remanded.*

Levine, Conner and Forst, JJ. concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 257 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 257

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit the Securities 
   and Exchange Commission from requiring an issuer to make climate-
 related disclosures that are not material to investors, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

  Mrs. Bice introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit the Securities 
   and Exchange Commission from requiring an issuer to make climate-
 related disclosures that are not material to investors, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Stop Environmental Calculations Act 
of 2025'' or the ``SEC Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AN ISSUER TO MAKE CLIMATE-RELATED 
              DISCLOSURES THAT ARE NOT MATERIAL TO INVESTORS.

    Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78w) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Prohibition on Requiring an Issuer To Make Climate-Related 
Disclosures That Are Not Material to Investors.--The Commission may not 
require an issuer to make climate-related disclosures that are not 
material to investors.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Exhibit 32.1

Each
of Patrick K. Gill, Chief Executive Officer, and James A. Luyk, Chief Financial Officer,
of OAK Financial Corporation, 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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 which
          this statement accompanies 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
          ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of OAK Financial Corporation.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 7, 2008

| |  | /s/ Patrick K. Gill

Patrick K. Gill Chief Executive Officer
/s/ James A. Luyk

James A. Luyk Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
certification has been provided to OAK Financial Corporation and will be retained by OAK
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
request.
David Ray GUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-574115

NO. 2019-BA-0519

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Petition to transfer bar exam fees granted.
# C_2017104EN.01003501.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

(Case C-27/17)

(2017/C 104/50)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

Applicant:

Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the circumstances of the present case, is the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be understood as meaning the place of conclusion of the defendants’ unlawful agreement infringing Article 82(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 102(c) TFEU), or the place of commission of acts by which the financial benefit obtained from that agreement was exploited, by means of predatory pricing (cross-subsidisation) when competing with the applicant in the same relevant markets? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the circumstances of the present case, is the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be understood as meaning the place of conclusion of the defendants’ unlawful agreement infringing Article 82(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 102(c) TFEU), or the place of commission of acts by which the financial benefit obtained from that agreement was exploited, by means of predatory pricing (cross-subsidisation) when competing with the applicant in the same relevant markets?

1

| 2. | In the present case, can the damage (loss of income) suffered by the applicant on account of the specified unlawful acts of the defendants be regarded as damage for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the present case, can the damage (loss of income) suffered by the applicant on account of the specified unlawful acts of the defendants be regarded as damage for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation?

| 3. | Are the operations of the branch of Air Baltic Corporation in the Republic of Lithuania, in the circumstances of the present case, to be regarded as operations of a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) of the Brussels I Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the operations of the branch of Air Baltic Corporation in the Republic of Lithuania, in the circumstances of the present case, to be regarded as operations of a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) of the Brussels I Regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---