alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018072EN.01002702.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE

(Case C-648/17)

(2018/C 072/36)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Balcia Insurance SE

Applicant:

Defendant: AS Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle?

1

| 2 | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger? |
| --- | --- |

2

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger?

---

(1)  English special edition: Series I Volume 1972(II) p. 360.

1

---
Raul-Alejandro RAMOS v. Andrew LE and La Rouge Properties

NO. 2019-C-0067

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.
1200.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Melton.

Action for penalty, from city court of Baxley — Judge Thomas. May 6, 1908.

Argued November 23, 1908. —

Decided November 9, 1909.

*J. F. DeLacy, McDcmiel, Alston S Black,*for plaintiff in error-.

*V. F. Padgett,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

All the questions embraced in the writ of error in this case having been certified to the Supreme Court and decided by that court adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*
Michael Eugene LAWRENCE v. STATE

CR-16-0698

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied October 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 9 PageID 138
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 9 PageID 139
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 9 PageID 140
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 4 of 9 PageID 141
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 5 of 9 PageID 142
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 6 of 9 PageID 143
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 7 of 9 PageID 144
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 8 of 9 PageID 145
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00042-M Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 9 of 9 PageID 146
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JASON DEWORD DADE, §

 §

Petitioner, §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-0989-R

 §

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice §

Correctional Institutions Division. §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Stickney filed Findings, Conclusions and a

Recommendation in this case on April 12, 2006. Petitioner, Jason Deword Dade, filed untimely

objections to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

on May 25, 2005. The Court will consider those objections in the interest of justice. Petitioner

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly

established law when those courts found that (1) Petitioner had waived his right to allocution by

failing to object at trial and (2) that his counsel was not ineffective by failing to object. 

After reviewing Magistrate Stickney’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) along with Petitioner's objections to those findings, the Court

concludes that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings of this Court. Petitioner’s objections are hereby

OVERRULED in their entirety.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

FILED

June 30, 2006

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00989-R Document 19 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 100
2

IT IS SO ORDERED

ENTERED: June 30, 2006 ___________________________________

HON. JERRY BUCHMEYER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00989-R Document 19 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 101
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,153)
<INVENTORY>                                    350,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               505,895
<PP&E>                                         265,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                (42,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,049,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          200,594
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           385
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,049,317
<SALES>                                      1,745,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,745,440
<CGS>                                        1,289,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,881,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (126)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,804
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,804
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04


</TABLE>
Stephen Andrew MORGAN v. CITY OF ENTERPRISE

CR-16-0497

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
7/13/23, 7:36 PM re:SearchTX - HTLF Bankvs.2B Farms, A General Texas Partnership,Terry Robinson,Angela Robinson DC-2023-CV-0641

https://research.txcourts.gov/CourtRecordsSearch/#!/casePrintView/53904ada5d735018a6c8d42934e96ac7 1/1

https://research.txcourts.gov/CourtRecordsSearch/ViewCasePrint/53904ada5d735018a6c8d42934e96ac7

Case Information

HTLF Bankvs.2B Farms, A General Texas Partnership,Terry Robinson,Angela Robinson

DC-2023-CV-0641

Location

Lubbock County - District Clerk

Case Category

Civil - Contract

Case Type

Debt/Contract - Debt/Collection

Case Filed Date

5/22/2023

Judge

Grace, John

Parties 4

Type Name Nickname/Alias Attorneys

Plaintiff HTLF Bank C. DUNHAM BILES

Defendant 2B Farms, A General Texas Partnership

Defendant Angela Robinson

Defendant Terry Robinson

Events 2

Date Event Type Comments Documents

5/22/2023 Filing Petition Plaintiff's Original Petition Plaintiff's Original Petition.pdf

6/21/2023 Filing NOTC - Notice Notice of Bankruptcy Filing Notice of Bankruptcy Filing.pdf

© 2023 Tyler Technologies, Inc. | All Rights Reserved

Version: 2023.6.0.45

Case 23-50096-rlj12 Doc 31-1 Filed 07/13/23 Entered 07/13/23 21:36:59 Desc

Case DC-2023-CV-0641 Docket Page 1 of 1
James Ray FRAZIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3421

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Case 3:05-cv-00172-M Document 15 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 39
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,584-01

EX PARTE ANGELITA FERNANDEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 7560A IN THE 32ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM MITCHELL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possessing a

prohibited item in a correctional facility and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that she was denied her right to a direct appeal through no fault of her

own. See Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Appellate counsel explains that

when he was appointed, Applicant was already released to an appellate bond, so it was assumed that

the notice of appeal had already been filed to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. A notice of
2

appeal, however, had not been timely filed, so Applicant’s direct appeal was later dismissed.

Fernandez v. State, No. 11-16-00351-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 6, 2017) (not designated for

publication).

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of

conviction in Cause No. 7560 from the 32nd District Court of Mitchell County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which she may give a written notice of appeal so that she may then, with the

aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial

court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant

on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date

on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an

appeal, she must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30

days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: April 12, 2017

Do not publish
Molly A. BRUNSON, Appellant, v. Adrienne ASHLEY, individually and Cathy Ashley Lane, her parent and natural guardian during her minority, Appellee.

Nos. 1D16-4972 1D17-3532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, and James A. McGhee of Kirkland McGhee & Gann, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Charles F. Beall, Jr., of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, and David A. Simpson and Jonathan D. Simpson of Simpson Law Firm, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The trial court ordered that defendant Molly Brunson was not entitled to attorney's fees and costs because her proposals for settlement were invalid as they failed to address punitive damages, even though *278punitive damages were not pled by the plaintiffs, Ashley and Lane. This was error under *Aguado v. Miller* , 219 So.3d 216, 217-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (finding that failure to include a statement that the proposal for settlement did not include punitive damages did not make the proposal invalid where the plaintiff did not seek punitive damages in the complaint). We, therefore, reverse the trial court's order denying Brunson's motion to tax attorney's fees and costs and remand for a determination of the proper award. We also reverse the trial court's final judgment in favor of Ashley and Lane, and remand to the trial court for determination of recoverable taxable costs in favor of Brunson. As to the cross-appeal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Makar and Winsor, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2025, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2025

  Mr. Thune submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To provide for the counting on January 6, 2025, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall of the House of 
Represenatives on Monday, the 6th day of January 2025, at 1 o'clock 
post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and 
laws relating to the election of President and Vice President of the 
United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their Presiding 
Officer; that two tellers shall be previously appointed by the 
President of the Senate on the part of the Senate and two by the 
Speaker on the part of the House of Represenatatives, to whom shall be 
handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 
certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and 
acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the 
letter ``A''; and said tellers, having then read the same in the 
presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes 
as they shall appear from said certificates; and the votes having been 
ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules by law 
provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of 
the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which 
announcement shall be deemed a suffucient declaration of the persons, 
if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and 
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the 
two Houses.
                                 <all>
```
Elizabeth SOILEAU v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

NO. 2019-C-0040

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Granted. See Order Attached.

Attachment

**SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA**

**No. 2019-C-0040**

**ELIZABETH SOILEAU**

**VERSUS**

**WAL-MART STORES, INC**

On Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers' Compensation, No. 10-04116, District 4; Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 18-284.

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued *905the following order, to wit- "It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.

Witness the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, on this 6th day of March, in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand-Nineteen.

John Tarlton Olivier

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 15, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1235 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1052, K2025-1051.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00794 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 42 

AN ACT 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska 

Natives or descendants of Alaska Natives from being 

used to determine eligibility for certain programs, 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 42 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska Native Settle3 ment Trust Eligibility Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

6 Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(c)) is amended, in the undesignated 

7 matter following paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph 

8 (E) and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(E) an interest in a Settlement Trust and, for 

10 the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enact11 ment of the Alaska Native Settlement Trust Eligi12 bility Act, an amount distributed from or benefit 

13 provided by a Settlement Trust to a Native or de14 scendant of a Native who is an aged, blind, or dis15 abled individual (as defined in section 1614(a) of the 

16 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a))).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 4, 

2025. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 42 

AN ACT 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

for certain programs, and for other purposes. Natives from being used to determine eligibility disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of Alaska to exclude certain payments to aged, blind, or
Case 4:03-cv-01410-A Document 51 Filed 04/05/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 226
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 Alchemy Enterprises, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold Sciotto, 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.





/s/ Harold Sciotto

Harold Sciotto

Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2005



/s/ Harold Sciotto

Harold Sciotto

Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2005
Case 2:04-cv-00124-J Document 13 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 62
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James W. Rogers, as Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JAMES  W. ROGERS                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: James W. Rogers                         |   |
| Title:*Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer* |   |
| Date: August 12, 2005                    |   |

 

----