alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021452EN.01003401.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament

(Case T-240/20 to T-245/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension - Plea of illegality - Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament - Rights acquired and future entitlements - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty)

(2021/C 452/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Stavros Arnaoutakis (Heraklion, Greece) and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Grosjean, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, M. Ecker and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision rejecting the application made by the applicants to be granted a voluntary additional pension in accordance with the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p. 8) on the ground that they have not reached the required age of 65.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20 for the purpose of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20 for the purpose of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Mr Stavros Arnaoutakis and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Stavros Arnaoutakis and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Derren Cordell READUS v. STATE

CR-16-1176

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tyler BIGHAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3993

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Page | 1

Hudson M. Jobe

Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone)

(214) 871-2111 (Telefax)

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEBTOR

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY §

FUND GP, L.P. § CASE NO: 23-31039-mvl7

§ (Chapter 11)

DEBTOR. §

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Debtor’s Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case (the 

“Motion”) [Docket No. 9], filed on June 12, 2023, is scheduled to be heard on July 19, 2023, at 

1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Michelle V. Larson, 1100 Commerce Street, 14th Floor, 

Courtroom #2, Dallas, Texas.

Respectfully submitted,

QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT 

& MOSER, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone)

(214) 871-2111 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Hudson M. Jobe 

 Hudson M. Jobe 

 State Bar No. 24041189

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 10 Filed 06/16/23 Entered 06/16/23 07:03:15 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Page | 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 16, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice has 

been served by electronic transmission via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon all parties 

registered to receive electronic notice in this bankruptcy case and via first-class mail on the 

parties listed on the mailing matrix attached hereto. 

 /s/ Hudson M. Jobe

Hudson M. Jobe

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 10 Filed 06/16/23 Entered 06/16/23 07:03:15 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20392

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EULALIO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CR-94-H-0268) 

______________________________________________

February 1, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eulalio Martinez appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He argues that the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from

a truck he was driving and in denying him a Sentencing Guidelines

offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We

affirm both the conviction and sentence for the following reasons:
2

1. The district court correctly denied Martinez's motion to

suppress complaining of the search of the pickup truck. Martinez

abandoned the truck and had no reasonable expectation of privacy

with respect to such automobile. See United States v. Barlow, 17

F.3d 85, 88 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d

749, 751 (5th Cir. 1971).

2. Martinez has failed to demonstrate that the district

court clearly erred in denying his request for a reduction based on

his acceptance of responsibility. Martinez did not plead guilty

and failed to cooperate with the probation officer with respect to

his involvement in the offense. Moreover, the complete information

he contends was provided to the Government was the same information

that he challenged at the suppression hearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 304 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 304

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 290 NW Peacock Boulevard in Port St. Lucie, Florida, as the 
             ``Trooper Zachary Fink Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

Mr. Mast (for himself, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Webster of 
Florida, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, and Mr. Scott Franklin of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 290 NW Peacock Boulevard in Port St. Lucie, Florida, as the 
             ``Trooper Zachary Fink Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TROOPER ZACHARY FINK POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 290 NW Peacock Boulevard in Port St. Lucie, Florida, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Trooper Zachary Fink Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Trooper 
Zachary Fink Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 1 of 7 PageID 248
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 2 of 7 PageID 249
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 3 of 7 PageID 250
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 4 of 7 PageID 251
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 5 of 7 PageID 252
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 6 of 7 PageID 253
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 42 Filed 10/16/03 Page 7 of 7 PageID 254
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 191 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 191

             To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Perry, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Biggs 
   of Arizona, Mr. Cloud, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Crane, Mrs. 
Miller of Illinois, Mr. Self, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Roy, Mr. Moore of Alabama, 
 Mr. Zinke, and Mr. Tiffany) introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
  Committees on Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Natural Resources, 
Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

    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 ``Inflation Reduction Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022.

    (a) In General.--Public Law 117-169 (commonly referred to as the 
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) is repealed.
    (b) Rescissions.--The unobligated balances of any amounts made 
available under Public Law 117-169 are rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of DYNAMIC ALERT LIMITED (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Robinson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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











Date:
November 12, 2009














By:           /s/
David Robinson





David
Robinson


Chairman
of the Board/Chief Executive Officer, principal executive
officer
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 93 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 93

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 
      Justice of the Department of State, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 
      Justice of the Department of State, 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 Imposing Woke Ideology Abroad 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
obligated or expended--
            (1) for the salary or expenses of the Special 
        Representative for Racial Equity and Justice of the Department 
        of State; or
            (2) to otherwise implement or carry out the Equity Action 
        Plan of the Department of State.
                                 <all>
```
---

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 Super Energy Investments
  Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December
  31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Chen Zhiqing, 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
        result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Chen Zhiqing 
  Chen Zhiqing 
  Chief Executive Officer
  November 12, 2003

---
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 Aampro Group, Inc., (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
Farkas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with 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, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
            fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant


Date: April 27, 2006         /s/ Stephen Farkas
                             --------------------------------
                             Stephen Farkas
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
KEEPING OUR LEGACY ALIVE, INC. v. CENTRAL ST. MATTHEW UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

NO. 2019-C-0130

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

*93Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11
                              THE WMF GROUP, LTD.
                   (Formerly NHP Financial Services, Ltd. and
                          Formerly WMF Holdings Ltd.)
                          Consolidated Balance Sheets
                     as of December 31, 1997,1996 and 1995
                  (dollars in thousands except per share data)

                           Computation Of Net Income

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Year        For the period    For the period        Year
                                Ended        April 1 1, 1996  January 1, 1996       Ended
                             December 31,    to December  31,   to March 31,     December 31,
                                 1997              1996             1996             1995
                                 ----              ----             ----             ----
 <S>                                 <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>
 Net Income                          $2,442            $1,155             $305             $777

 Weighted-average share
   outstanding:
 Shares outstanding,
   beginning of period                4,272             4,217            4,217            4,717
 Weighted-average shares
   outstanding                        4,272             4,217            4,217            4,717

 Net Income per share                 $0.57             $0.27            $0.07            $0.16
</TABLE>
William H. RINGWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0069

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
# C_2016343EN.01004802.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/48

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-438/16)

(2016/C 343/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 127 870 designating the European Union

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 in Case R 1889/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or

| — | remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered;

| — | order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis. |
| --- | --- |

—

order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 1 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require 

that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona submitted the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to require that the Supreme Court of the United 

States be composed of nine justices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 1 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The Supreme Court of the United States shall be 

3 composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice 

4 and eight associate justices.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB