alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018005EN.01001801.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2017 — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-556/17)

(2018/C 005/25)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alekszij Torubarov

Applicant:

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the Hungarian courts have the power to amend administrative decisions of the competent asylum authority refusing international protection, and also to grant such protection?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2013, L 180, p. 60.

1

---
# C_2018328EN.01001502.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

(Case C-140/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))

(2018/C 328/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---
T.M. and M.H. v. C.M.

2160493

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 69 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 69

    To amend title 29, District of Columbia Official Code, to treat 
meetings held by nonprofit organizations with officials of the Federal 
  Government which are held in the District of Columbia at locations 
      owned or leased by the Federal Government as activities not 
constituting doing business in the District of Columbia for purposes of 
 determining whether such organizations are required to register with 
                       the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Ogles, and Mr. Crane) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 29, District of Columbia Official Code, to treat 
meetings held by nonprofit organizations with officials of the Federal 
  Government which are held in the District of Columbia at locations 
      owned or leased by the Federal Government as activities not 
constituting doing business in the District of Columbia for purposes of 
 determining whether such organizations are required to register with 
                       the District of Columbia.

    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 ``Freedom to Petition the Government 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF MEETINGS BETWEEN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND 
              FEDERAL OFFICIALS AS ACTIVITIES NOT CONSTITUTING DOING 
              BUSINESS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 29-105.05(a), District of Columbia Official Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) In the case of an entity that is described in 
        section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
        from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, holding a 
        meeting with a Member of Congress or another officer, employee, 
        or representative of the Federal Government at a location owned 
        or leased by the Federal Government.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Jonathan Daniel JACKSON

NO. 2018-KO-1558

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00080-CV

Ex parte Earnest Lee Glover, Appellant

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-19-008912, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTÚ HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In December 2019, Earnest Lee Glover filed a petition for original habeas corpus

with the trial court. Glover styled his petition as a civil lawsuit, naming Lorie Davis as 

defendant, but he sought habeas relief, to have his judgment of conviction set aside and to be 

released from custody.1 Glover filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order granting 

Davis’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2021, this Court informed Glover that it appeared that this Court 

lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 (setting forth 

procedure for writ of habeas corpus); In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin

2012, no pet.) (“Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to 

proceedings under article 11.07.”); Ex parte Williams, 239 S.W.3d 859, 862 (Tex. App.—Austin 

1 According to offender information details attached to the plea to the jurisdiction before 

the trial court, Glover was sentenced in 2007 to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and is 

serving sentences of confinement for ninety-nine years.
2

2007, no pet.).

2 This Court also directed him to file a response on or before July 26, 2021, 

explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. To date, appellant has not 

filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 22, 2021

2 See also McClure v. State, No. 03-13-00226-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7184, at *1–2

(Tex. App.—Austin June 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“The 

intermediate courts of appeal have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings 

initiated under article 11.07.”)
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 836 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 

Chief of the Forest Service, and the Secretary of the 

Interior to conduct an evaluation with respect to the 

use of the container aerial firefighting system (CAFFS), 

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 836 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Wildfire 

3 Fighting Technology Act of 2025’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONTAINER AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM 

5 (CAFFS). 

6 (a) EVALUATION.—Not later than 90 days after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri8 culture and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 

9 with the National Interagency Aviation Committee and the 

10 Interagency Airtanker Board, shall jointly conduct an 

11 evaluation of the container aerial firefighting system to as12 sess the use of such system to mitigate and suppress 

13 wildfires. 

14 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date 

15 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture 

16 and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 

17 National Interagency Aviation Committee and the Inter18 agency Airtanker Board, shall jointly submit to the appro19 priate committees a report that includes the results of the 

20 evaluation required under subsection (a). 

21 (c) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES DEFINED.—In this 

22 section, the term ‘‘appropriate committees’’ means— 

23 (1) the Committees on Agriculture and Natural 

24 Resources of the House of Representatives; and 
3 

•HR 836 EH

1 (2) the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

2 and Forestry and Energy and Natural Resources of 

3 the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 5, 

2025. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 836 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

poses. firefighting system (CAFFS), and for other purwith respect to the use of the container aerial Secretary of the Interior to conduct an evaluation through the Chief of the Forest Service, and the
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 29 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 1 of 4

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 29

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 29 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 29 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 29 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT NO. 10.15





EXHIBIT NO. 10.15


MEMORANDUM



 

To:James S. Arthurs



From:Marc T. Giles



Re:Appointment, Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company")



Date:September 30, 2002



 

Effective September 30, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") has appointed you a Senior Vice President of the Company and President of Gerber Technology, Inc.  The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board has set your base salary at $204,620 per year and has set your bonus target under the Company's 2000-2004 Executive Annual Incentive Bonus Plan at 50%.  Effective September 30, 2002, you will no longer be eligible to receive the Company car allowance.  



For the fiscal year ending April 30, 2003, your bonus will be calculated as follows:  for the period May 1, 2002 through September 30, 2002, your bonus target will be 30% of the pro rata portion of your base salary as of April 30, 2003, and for the period October 1, 2002 through April 30, 2003, your bonus target will be 50% of the pro rata portion of your base salary as of April 30, 2003. 



If this memorandum sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this memorandum, which will then constitute our agreement on this subject.



 

                                                                                /s/ Marc. T. Giles_______

                                                                                Marc T. Giles

                                                                                President and CEO



 

Agreed this 24th date of October, 2002.



/s/ James S. Arthurs            

James S. Arthurs
# C_2022432EN.01002001.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees - Individual positions of the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)

(2022/C 432/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage and T. Bégel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Pollinis France, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and Commission Decision C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning the Guidance Document of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees, adopted by the EFSA on 27 June 2013, originally published on 4 July 2013, then republished on 4 July 2014 and granted it partial access to certain other documents concerning the 2013 guidance document on bees.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
M.E.D. v. STATE EX REL. P.L.S.

2170027

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 24, 2021

No. 04-21-00110-CV

IN RE GREAT PLAINS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI19936

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant, American General Life Insurance Company's Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Reply Brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellant's Reply Brief is due October 8, 2021.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Fotina A. PAPAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 3:04-cv-00895-H Document 38 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 121
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00884]

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

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 16, 2025.

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 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1258 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1076, K2025-1075.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00884 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
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 Quarterly Report of Lakeside Mortgage Fund, LLC
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William F. Webster, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Lakeside Financial Group, Inc., the Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      (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.


Dated:     November 13, 2006              By: /S/ William F. Webster
                                              ----------------------
                                              William F. Webster,
                                              President of Manager
                                              Lakeside Financial Group, Inc.

<PAGE>
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 25 

Condemning the commutation of the death sentence of Marvin Charles 

Gabrion II granted by President Biden on December 23, 2024. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2025 

Mr. COTTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the commutation of the death sentence of 

Marvin Charles Gabrion II granted by President Biden 

on December 23, 2024. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE COM3 MUTATION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE OF 

4 MARVIN CHARLES GABRION II GRANTED BY 

5 PRESIDENT BIDEN ON DECEMBER 23, 2024. 

6 It is the sense of the Senate that— 

7 (1) President Joseph R. Biden undermined the 

8 rule of law and robbed victims of justice when he 

9 commuted the death sentence of Marvin Charles 

10 Gabrion II on December 23, 2024; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 25 IS 

1 (2) Marvin Gabrion was sentenced to death for 

2 murdering 19-year-old Rachel Timmerman just 2 

3 days before she was scheduled to testify that 

4 Gabrion had abducted and raped her; 

5 (3) Marvin Gabrion was also the prime suspect 

6 in the disappearance and murder of several other in7 dividuals, including Rachel Timmerman’s 11-month8 old daughter and 2 potential witnesses at his rape 

9 trial; 

10 (4) this commutation is a reprehensible insult 

11 to the victims of Marvin Gabrion; 

12 (5) President Biden claimed that he commuted 

13 the death sentences of Marvin Gabrion and 36 other 

14 murderers out of a principled opposition to the death 

15 penalty but refused to commute the death sentences 

16 of the 3 most controversial death row inmates, dem17 onstrating that President Biden was motivated by 

18 politics, not principles; and 

19 (6) the Senate unequivocally condemns this 

20 commutation. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
James MCKAY, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0025

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 29, 2019

James McKay, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Roberts, Wetherell, and Makar, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Sterling Michael GARRETT

1160977 (CR-16-0313)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 13.1 CERT IFICATION 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 MAX RESOURCE CORP. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart Rogers, Principal Executive and I, Christopher Cherry, Principal 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 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.

Stuart RogersStuart Rogers, Principal Executive Officer June  27, 2011   Christopher CherryChristopher Cherry, Principal Financial Officer June  27, 2011