alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Henry Norris WILLIAMS, et al v. The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al

NO. 2019-CC-0563

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 16, 2019

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF IBERVILLE

PER CURIAM

Granted. Considering the unusual circumstances of this case, we find the district court's ruling was consistent with the authority granted by La. R.S. 13:3044(C) and was equitable to all parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is reinstated. The case is remanded *1132to the district court for further proceedings.
# C_2019288EN.01003702.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn, in the presence of: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann von Linz-Land

(Case C-633/17) (1)

(2019/C 288/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
# C_2018112EN.01001602.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 December 2017 — CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa v Comune di Tarvisio

(Case C-710/17)

(2018/C 112/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Tarvisio

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a provision such as that of Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006 that allows the participation of an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

1

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

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

|                    | HemoBioTech,    Inc. |                                                              |
|-------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                 |                                                              |   |
| Date:      May 13, 2008 | By:                  | /s/ Arthur      P. Bollon, Ph.D.                             |   |
|                    |                 | Name:      Arthur P. Bollon, Ph.D.                                |   |
|                    |                 | Title:      Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                    |                 |                                                              |   |
Leroy BOONE v. Discover BANK

2170003

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 27, 2017

Dismissed.
#### Maule Ojus Rock Company, a Corporation, Organized and Doing Business Under the Laws of the State of Florida, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. H. L. McDonald and Leo Burgman, a Co-Partnership, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of McDonald and Burgman, *Defendants in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed July 22, 1927.

*Price, Price, Neeley & Kehoe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Snedigar, Miller, McKay & Baya,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

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

Whitpield, P. J., and Terrell and Bupord, J. J., concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20461 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PAULA JEAN FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-458-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Paula Jean Fields appeals following her guilty-plea convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count One) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). Fields argues that her convictions on the above counts are multiplicitous and that they violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. She contends that her conviction for Count Two should be vacated and the case remanded to the district United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D April 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-20461 -2- court with instructions to dismiss that count. The Government concedes the error and agrees that the conviction on Count Two should be vacated. Simultaneous convictions and sentences for the same criminal act involving possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition violate double jeopardy. See United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we vacate Fields’s conviction on Count Two and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss that count. See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864- 65 (1985). Fields’s conviction on Count One is affirmed. Fields argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it does not require a substantial affect on interstate commerce. She also contends that the mere fact that a firearm or ammunition traveled across state lines in the past is legally insufficient to satisfy § 922(g)(1)’s interstate commerce requirement. Fields acknowledges that these arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, but she raises them to preserve them for further review. This court has repeatedlyheld that “‘the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.’” United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001)(quoting United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999)). This court has also held that evidence that a weapon was manufactured in one state and possessed in another is sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 922(g). United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 1998); UnitedNo. 06-20461 -3- States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Fields’s arguments are foreclosed. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Kelvin WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2527

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 39 Filed 06/01/2005 Page 1 of 2

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 39

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 39 Filed 06/01/2005 Page 2 of 2
COPELAND LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 399

Cedar Park, Texas 78613

512.219.8930 (phone/fax)

TIM COPELAND* ERIKA COPELAND**

(512) 897-8196 mobile/text (512) 897-8126 mobile/text

tcopeland14@yahoo.com ecopeland63@yahoo.com

*Board Certified - Oil, Gas & Mineral Law **Of Counsel 

Texas Board of Legal Specialization

October 20, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Via e-filing 

Re: Cause No. 03-14-00673-CR

(Trial Court No. 72519)(Bell County) 

Christopher Anthony George v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Please be advised that I have complied with Rule 48.4 with regard to giving 

notification of the Court’s opinion in this case to the above-referenced 

client as well as advised him of his rights with regard to the filing of a 

petition for discretionary review-- as shown by the enclosed copy of the 

certified mailing receipt for same. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/Erika Copeland 

Erika Copeland 

EC:aw 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00673-CR

7450929

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/20/2015 11:18:18 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/20/2015 11:18:18 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
D

.:r

JJ

Cl

U") .-'!

Cl 

t'-
Timothy Lebaron MIXON v. STATE

CR-16-0900

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone FOLSE

NO. 2018-K-173 9

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 259 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit certain advertising 

with respect to the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. OGLES, and Mr. HARRIS of Maryland) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit 

certain advertising with respect to the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Funding for Illegal 

5 Migrant Billboards Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 259 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ADVERTISING WITH RE2 SPECT TO THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION 

3 OMBUDSMAN. 

4 Section 405 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

5 (6 U.S.C. 205) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(f) ADVERTISEMENT.—The Secretary may not obli8 gate or expend any funds to advertise to the general pub9 lic, by billboard or otherwise, the office or functions of the 

10 Ombudsman.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 30 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 4

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 30

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 30 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 30 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 30 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 4 of 4
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                          |                        |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                                    | OCCULOGIX, INC.               |
|                                    |                          |                        |
| Date : August 13,  2009  | By:                 | /s/ William G. Dumencu |
|                                    |  Chief Financial Officer |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

MARY L. PENA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-049-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

February 27, 2006 (Doc. 22). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on

March 8, 2006 (Doc. 23). The court has made a de novo determination of the Report and

Recommendation after consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the submissions of the parties, and

the transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

The court finds the objections to be without merit. The court further finds that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports his decision. The court

also finds that the Report and Recommendation applied the correct legal standards.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 17) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00049-C Document 24 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 142
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated March 10, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00049-C Document 24 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 143
Theresa A. JONES, Appellant, v. Addie BURKS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-685

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3976-3977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00788]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

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.

[[Page 3977]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
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[supreg] Contract 1229 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1042, K2025-1041.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00788 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350, 

created Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

 

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyat the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: November 17, 2005

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

 

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 theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000576

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
LIGAYA NAVASCA and RAYMOND SEBASTIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

ROBERT ROSS, Defendant-Appellant, and PAUL HAYCRAFT; DAVID YAMADA; WALTER SERGENT; and GENE SORDILLA,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-21-10106)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before November 21, 2022, and December 19, 2022, respectively;

(2) Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Robert Ross (Ross) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time; (3) On January 20, 2023, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Ross that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on January 30, 2023, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Ross could request relief from default by motion; Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000576 19-MAY-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 24 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering case on calendar and the default notice to Ross at his addresses on record in this appeal and they were returned as undeliverable;

(5) HRAP Rule 25(f) requires a self-represented party, within 10 days of any change in mailing address, to file a notice of change of address with the appellate clerk; and

(6) Ross has not filed a notice of change of address, and Ross took no further action in this appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 19, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
K.M. v. L.A. and L.O.

2170155

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Fayette Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
URGO HOTELS LP, a Maryland limited partnership, by and through its general partners, Urgo Lodging Management, LLC, Donald J. Urgo, Donald J. Urgo, Jr., Kevin M. Urgo, Collin D. Urgo and UH-SI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellants, v. The RESORT AT SINGER ISLAND, HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 3, 2019]

Jack J. Aiello, Heather C. Costanzo, Devin S. Radkay, and Gregor J. Schwinghammer of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Alan B. Rose and Daniel A. Thomas of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Daniel S. Rosenbaum of Rosenbaum PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Garden Suburbs Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Pruitt* , 156 Fla. 825, 24 So.2d 898 (1946).

Warner, Gross and Forst, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                       SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

                      SUPPLEMENT EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

WHEREAS the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Santa Fe
International Corporation ("Board") having been expressly authorized by the
Board has, effective November 22, 1999, authorized and approved an amendment of
the definition of "Change of Control" contained within the Santa Fe
International Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("Plan") to
address a "merger of equals" transaction; and

WHEREAS, Section 2.2 of the Plan authorizes the Board in this instance to amend
the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Santa Fe International Corporation Supplement Executive
Retirement Plan is hereby amended effective November 22, 1999 as follows:

1.   A new Subparagraph (vi) of Section 4.5 "Change of Control" thereof is ADDED
     to the Plan to read as follows:

         (vi) there is consummated a `merger of equals' (which for purposes of
         this Subsection shall mean a merger with another company of relatively
         equal size) to which the Company is a party as a result of which the
         persons who were equityholders of the Company immediately prior to the
         effective date of such merger shall have beneficial ownership of less
         than 55% of the combined voting power for election of members of the
         Board (or equivalent) of the surviving entity or its parent following
         the effective date of such merger, provided that the Board shall have
         authority to increase said percentage as may in its sole discretion be
         deemed appropriate to cover a specific transaction.


Dated:  December 1, 1999



By: /s/ Cary A. Moomjian
    --------------------------------------------
    Santa Fe International Corporation
Case 3:04-cv-02727-B Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
EX PARTE Aven COTTON

CR-16-1152

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.