alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017300EN.01002501.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/25

---

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-420/17)

(2017/C 300/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to establish a general system of protection for the ortolan bunting in Landes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to establish a general system of protection for the ortolan bunting in Landes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that France has never taken the necessary coherent and coordinated protective measures to establish a system of protection for the ortolan bunting, and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2009/147/EC. (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7.

1

---
**Exhibit 15.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-92220, 333-81564, 333-108833, 333-125075, 333-137354, 333-149631, 333-158154, 333-158155, 333-165591, 333-168020, 333-172919, 333-172920, 333-172921 and333-215535 and Form F-3 333-202880) of ING Groep N.V. of our report dated February 29, 2016, with respect to, before the effects of the adjustments described in 1a and 1b of note 2.1.1 “Notes to the accounting policies” that were appliedto the 2015 and 2014 consolidated financial statements to retrospectively reflect the change in accounting for offsetting of financial assets and financial liabilities and the changes in presentation of the consolidated annual accounts and relatednotes, the consolidated financial statements of ING Groep N.V., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2016 of ING Groep N.V. 

Our report refers to the adjustments described in note 2.1.1 “Notes to the accounting policies”. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, orapply any procedures with respect to such adjustments. 

Amsterdam, March 16, 2017 

/s/ Ernst & Young Accountants LLP 

Ernst & YoungAccountants LLP
Case 5:05-cr-00083-C Document 112 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 393
 

 Case 5:05-cr-00083-C Document 112 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 394
FBI Media

            - FBI.gov
            - Facebook Icon
            - Email Icon
            - Twitter Icon
            - Youtube Icon
            - Flickr Icon
            -  Search FBISubmit Search 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

# 

These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used withoutcost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organizationlisted in the description field.

# Section Links

## Most Wanted

              -  Ten Most Wanted 
              -  Fugitives 
              -  Terrorism 
              -  Kidnappings/Missing Persons 
              -  Seeking Information 
              -  Bank Robbers 
              -  ECAP 
              -  ViCAP 

## News

              -  Stories 
              -  Videos 
              -  Press Releases 
              -  Speeches 
              -  Testimony 
              -  Podcasts and Radio 
              -  Photos 

## What We Investigate

              -  Terrorism 
              -  Counterintelligence 
              -  Cyber Crime 
              -  Public Corruption 
              -  Civil Rights 
              -  Organized Crime 
              -  White-Collar Crime 
              -  Violent Crime 
              -  WMD 

## Services

              -  Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) 
              -  CIRG 
              -  Laboratory Services 
              -  Training Academy 
              -  Operational Technology 
              -  Records Management 

## Resources

              -  Law Enforcement 
              -  Businesses 
              -  Victim Assistance 
              -  Reports and Publications 

## About

              -  Mission & Priorities 
              -  Leadership & Structure 
              -  Partnerships 
              -  Community Outreach 
              -  Frequently Asked Questions 

## Contact Us

              -  United States Field Offices 
              -  FBI Headquarters 
              -  Overseas Offices 

## More

              -  Submit a Tip 
              -  Crime Statistics 
              -  History 
              -  FOIA 
              -  Scams & Safety 
              -  FBI Kids 
              -  FBI Jobs 

              -  Accessibility 
              -  eRulemaking 
              -  Freedom of Information Act 
              -  Legal Notices 
              -  Legal Policies and Disclaimers 
              -  Links 
              -  Privacy Policy 
              -  USA.gov 
              -  White House 

FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice

    - Home
    -  FBI.gov
Case 2:05-cv-00118-J Document 59 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 766
Case 2:05-cv-00118-J Document 59 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 767
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 1

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2025

Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. 
 Paul, Mr. Young, Mr. Daines, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Lummis, Mrs. Britt, Mr. 
  Marshall, and Mr. Banks) introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has served 3 terms as a Representative 
shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For 
purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in 
the House of Representatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 
the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if 
the person fills the vacancy for more than 1 year.
    ``Section 2. No person who has served 2 terms as a Senator shall be 
eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of 
this section, the election or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy 
in the Senate shall be included as 1 term in determining the number of 
terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the 
vacancy for more than 3 years.
    ``Section 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification 
of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility 
for election or appointment under this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
Kenneth MORROW v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (Corizon, LLC), et al.

1160064

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer ofAdvance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash AdvanceCenters, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John I.Hill, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with 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.
| August 15, 2005 |                           |
|----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ JOHN  I. HILL              |
|                 | John I. Hill                   |
| * *             | *Executive Vice President and* |
| * *             | *Chief Financial Officer*      |

 

----
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall meet 

3 in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Monday, 

4 the 6th day of January 2025, at 1 o’clock post meridian, 

5 pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and laws 

6 relating to the election of President and Vice President 

7 of the United States, and the President of the Senate shall 

8 be their Presiding Officer; that two tellers shall be pre9 viously appointed by the President of the Senate on the 

10 part of the Senate and two by the Speaker on the part 

11 of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, 

12 as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 

13 certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the 

14 electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be 

15 opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical 

16 order of the States, beginning with the letter ‘‘A’’; and 

17 said tellers, having then read the same in the presence 

18 and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the 

19 votes as they shall appear from said certificates; and the 
2 

†SCON 2 ES 

1 votes having been ascertained and counted in the manner 

2 and according to the rules by law provided, the result of 

3 the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, 

4 who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which 

5 announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of 

6 the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President 

7 of the United States, and together with a list of the votes, 

8 be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. 

Passed the Senate January 3, 2025. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2025, of 

dent of the United States. the electoral votes for President and Vice Presi-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LARRY WESTON BEARDEN, )

#326257, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0769-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that

the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they

are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed this 4 day of November 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00769-P Document 12 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 63
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LARRY WESTON BEARDEN, )

#326257, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0769-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that

the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they

are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed this 4 day of November 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LARRY WESTON BEARDEN, )

#326257, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0769-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

The Court has entered its Order Accepting the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in this case. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to Petitioner’s right

to file a motion for leave to file a second or successive petition in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Signed this 4 day of November 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00769-P Document 12 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 64
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I,
Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: March 12, 2010



/s/ Tucker I. MarrName: Tucker I. MarrTitle: Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
1The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John

M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4038

___________

Douglas Thompson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 5, 1999

 Filed: May 11, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Thompson appeals from the district court’s1 order denying with

prejudice his postconviction motion for return of seized property. Upon a careful
-2-

review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s motion. See Foy v. Klapmeier, 992 F.2d

774, 779 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for denial of equitable relief).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2017269EN.01000801.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2017 — Éva Nothartová v József Boldizsár Sámson

(Case C-306/17)

(2017/C 269/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Tatabányai Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Éva Nothartová

Applicant:

Defendant: József Boldizsár Sámson

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Where there is a counterclaim arising from a contract or facts different from those on which the claim is based, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim:

| (a) | Does only Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’) (1) apply because only that provision concerns the counterclaim, or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Does only Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’) (1) apply because only that provision concerns the counterclaim, or

1

| (b) | Does Article 8(3) of the Brussels Ia Regulation refer solely to a counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, so that that regulation does not apply to a counterclaim which does not arise from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, and for this reason must it be determined, in accordance with the other rules of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, that the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim also has jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does Article 8(3) of the Brussels Ia Regulation refer solely to a counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, so that that regulation does not apply to a counterclaim which does not arise from the same contract or facts on which the claim is based, and for this reason must it be determined, in accordance with the other rules of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, that the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim also has jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,980
<SECURITIES>                                    40,768
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,390
<PP&E>                                          16,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,039)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,894
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,240
<SALES>                                         89,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,516
<CGS>                                           46,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,575)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,165
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,165
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
Willie Tyrone JACKSON v. STATE

CR-16-1018

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.