alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019004EN.01000301.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — XC, YB, ZA

(Case C-234/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Sincere cooperation - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down a remedy allowing criminal proceedings to be reheard in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - No obligation to extend that procedure to cases of alleged infringement of the fundamental rights enshrined in EU law)

(2019/C 4/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XC, YB, ZA

Intervener: Generalprokuratur

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to extend to infringements of EU law, in particular to infringements of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and which entered into force on 26 March 1995, a remedy under national law permitting, only in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, or one of the protocols thereto, the rehearing of criminal proceedings closed by a national decision having the force of res judicata.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 66 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 66

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans 
         Affairs relating to ``Reproductive Health Services''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2022

 Mr. Tuberville (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Daines, Mr. Lankford, 
 Mr. Moran, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans 
         Affairs relating to ``Reproductive Health Services''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Veterans Affairs relating to 
``Reproductive Health Services'' (87 Fed. Reg. 55287; published 
September 9, 2022), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### W. A. Taylor, *Appellant,*v. E. R. Grundy, and Winfield Investment Company, a Corporation, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 25, 1927.

*Botts, Davis, Davis <& Field,*for Appellant;

*T. E. Price*and *Harold Kassewitz,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

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

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIYLEE JONES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 215 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of September, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

The Application to Appear as Amici Curiae is denied as moot.
Eduardo GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1017

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

Jill S. Barger, of Jill S. Barger LLC, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6316

EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; WARDEN BOBBY 

SHEARIN; MAJOR MELLOTT; CAPTAIN STOTLER; M. YACENCH; LT. DALE 

SMITH; LT. GEORGE MCALPINE; LIEUTENANT MANUEL; J. GARY SINDY; 

SERGEANT FORNEY; L.O. MILLER; LT. R. FRITZ; LIEUTENANT THOMAS; 

J.R. MALLOW; G. MALLOW; LOWERY; J. HARTMAN; D.S. CAPLE; D. 

MICHAEL; J.E. WIEMER; C. PRESTON; J. WILT; S. LIPSCOMB; 

OFFICER WILSON; J.W. REIEKE; J. FARRIS; RYAN KALBAUGH; CRAIG 

PETERS; LUKE GIRVIN; OFFICER ORT; OFFICER VETORAE; D. 

SYVERSTAD; M. KISNER; M.E. PRICE; A. LODGSON; D.J. SMITH; 

ROMESBURG; M. BUCHOLTZ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-02656-DKC)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Dorianne Avery Meloy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
2

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Sewell v. Office of the Attorney Gen. 

of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Robert LONG and Nicole Long, Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON fka The Bank of New York AS TRUSTEE FOR the CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWALT, INC., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA17, Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-872

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Affirmed.
PROPOSED ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Shalandra Cotton,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00161-EMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based on the Stipulation jointly filed by the Parties to the above-captioned case,

it is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to 

bear its own attorney fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:____________, 2017 ___________________________ 

Hon. Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

6/8

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen
Case 3:05-cv-02156-L Document 1 Filed 02/18/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-02156-L Document 1 Filed 02/18/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-02156-L Document 1 Filed 02/18/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-02156-L Document 1 Filed 02/18/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4
T.W., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 8, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Denied.
<PAGE> 1
                                                             Exhibit 23







                  Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Equality Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-43655 on Form S-8 of Equality Bancorp, Inc. (Equality) of our report
dated May 8, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Equality
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, cash flows, and
comprehensive income for each of the years in the three-year period ended
March 31, 1998, which report appears in the March 31, 1998 annual report on
Form 10-KSB of Equality.



                              /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
June 26, 1998
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8428-8429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) published the name of one entity that has been placed on 
OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN 
List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal 
criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject 
to U.S. jurisdiction of this entity are blocked, and U.S. persons are 
generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with this entity.

DATES: This action was issued on January 17, 2025. See Supplementary 
Information for relevant dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 
202-622-2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

Notice of OFAC Action

    On January 17, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
entity are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JA25.001

[[Page 8429]]

Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2025-01876 Filed 1-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
```
Steven ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2652

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 19, 2009 

# Order

May 19, 2009

132876(40)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 132876 v COA: 264052 Saginaw CC: 03-022840-FH MATTHEW LLOYD MCGRAW, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plai ntiff-appellee for extension of the time for filing their brief on appeal is considered and, it appearing the brief was filed April 22, 2009,the time for filing is extended to that date.
# C_2017283EN.01002501.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-370/17)

(2017/C 283/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Article 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee to be preserved even though the E 101 certificate has been obtained as a result of fraud or an abuse of right, which has been established in a final decision of a court of the Member State in which the employee carries out or should carry out his activity?

1

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does the issuing of E 101 certificates prevent the victims of the damage suffered as a result of the conduct of the employer, who has committed the fraud, from being compensated for that damage, without the affiliation of the employees to the schemes designated by the E 101 certificate being called into question by the action for damages brought against the employer?

---

(1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**I, Randall H. Brown, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Education Realty Trust, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated this *10*th day of August, 2006.                           /s/ Randall H. Brown   Randall H. Brown   Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 58 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 58

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2022

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
            (1) The sale of the following defense articles and 
        services, described in Transmittal No. 22-26, submitted to 
        Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
        Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the 
        Congressional Record on August 2, 2022: three hundred (300) 
        PATRIOT MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical Ballistic 
        missiles (GEM-T); tools and test equipment; range and test 
        programs; support equipment to include associated publications 
        and technical documentation; training equipment; spare and 
        repair parts; New Equipment Training; Transportation; Quality 
        Assurance Team support; U.S. Government and contractor 
        technical assistance; engineering, and logistics support 
        services; Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO); field office 
        support; International Engineering Services Program Field 
        Surveillance Program; and other related elements of logistics 
        and program support.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Battle Mountain Gold Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2.       The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: February 24, 2016 “Chet Idziszek”Chet Idziszek
    President and Chief Executive Officer


---
EX PARTE Nancy BUCKNER, Sam Smith, Pamela McClellan, and Teresa Ellis (employees of Alabama Department of Human Resources and Calhoun County Department of Human Resources)

(In re: William David Streip, as personal representative of the Estate of Jerrie Leann Streip v. State Department of Human Resources, Nancy Buckner, Leviticus Place, Inc., Calhoun County Department of Human Resources, Sam Smith, Pamela McClellan, and Teresa B. Ellis)

2170589

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 20, 2018

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAISY SAJI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00025-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPEAR 

TELEPHONICALLY AT CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE; CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE CONSENT SUGGESTION

Re: Dkt. No. 53 

Plaintiff has filed a request to appear telephonically at the case management conference 

currently set for November 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (Dkt. No. 53.) Counsel bases the request on the 

legal fees and costs associated with traveling to the Oakland courthouse. 

The request to appear by telephone is DENIED. Pursuant to the undersigned judge’s 

Standing Order in Civil Cases, telephonic appearances are allowed at initial case management 

conferences only upon a compelling showing of good cause. The routine inconveniences of travel 

do not constitute good cause especially here, where counsel is based in San Francisco and the 

Court requires lead counsel to appear. 

If the parties believe this action does not warrant the expense associated with their required 

presence, they may consider reassignment to any magistrate judge of their choice. Profiles can be 

found at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Magistrate judges in this district carry significant 

consent cases and are more flexible than the undersigned. Any joint request for reassignment to a 

magistrate judge should be filed no later than November 29, 2017. 

 That said, the Court understands that the parties are attempting to settle the underlying 

dispute. An update of those efforts should have been outlined in the updated Case Management 

Conference statement. The Court further understands that another ADR telephonic call is 

scheduled for November 28, 2017. 
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Accordingly, the Court will continue the case management conference to December 4, 

2017 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States Federal Courthouse in Oakland, California. 

The parties shall file an update on the status of any settlement with a proposed schedule for 

resolving the litigation by November 29, 2017. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 53. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 8, 2017 _______________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
S.R. v. T.S.

2160531

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.