alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Samuel J. Stoia, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 925]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995, was suspended by this Court’s order dated October 25, 2007 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (44 AD3d 1246 [2007]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Peters, PJ., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
# C_2020068EN.01003001.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/30

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS

(Case C-851/19 P)

(2020/C 68/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18);

| — | annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 (T-217/18), in which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment and ordered him to pay the costs.

In that regard, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law (paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal), in so far as the General Court interpreted Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations as allowing damage in respect of which compensation has already been paid to be taken into account in order to justify imposing a stricter disciplinary measure on a civil servant as compared to the measure recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.

---
# C_2019328EN.01000401.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2019 — Roberto Abate SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-416/19)

(2019/C 328/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Roberto Abate SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Are Article 1(1223) of Law No 296 of 27 December 2006 (now Article 16a(11) of Law No 11 of 4 February 2005) and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 23 May 2007 compatible with EU law, with reference to Article 108(3) TFEU as interpreted in Deggendorf, Commission Decision C(2008) 380, and the Community-law principle of proportionality?

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales

Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company

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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales
(Noble-UK), and Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company (Noble-Cayman) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David W. Williams, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Noble-UK and President and Chief Executive Officer of Noble-Cayman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|April 30, 2014 |  | /s/ David W. Williams                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|               |  | David W. Williams                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|               |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of
England and Wales, and President and Chief Executive Officer
of Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD TYER, a/k/a James Edward Tyler, a/k/a Tyer 

Edward James, a/k/a Jay,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00043-CMH-2; 1:12-cv-00753-CMH)

Submitted: December 26, 2013 Decided: January 7, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Tyer, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Keim, Tino Martin 

Lisella, Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Tyer seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Tyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### HAN ZHANG LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73934.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 14, 2011.

Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.

James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nehal Kamani, Sarah L. Vuong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Han Zhang Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lu is ineligible for asylum where he conceded he suffered no past persecution and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); *Arriarga-Barrientos v. INS,*937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that persecution of a petitioner’s family members may establish a well-founded fear, despite a lack of persecution against the petitioner, only if the persecution is “closely tied to the petitioner”). Accordingly, Lu’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lu failed to prove eligibility for asylum, Lu has necessarily failed to prove *349eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Official Journal C 164/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 164 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6519 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 164

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6519 April 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 164/01 | Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 164/01

Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2019270EN.01002201.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-403/19)

(2019/C 270/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Générale SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Question referred

In the light of Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does the fact that the application of the rules set out in paragraph 5 of this decision, in order to compensate for the double taxation of dividends paid to a company liable for corporation tax in the Member State of residence by a company resident in another Member State and subject, by virtue of the exercise by that Member States of the power of taxation, to withholding tax, is liable to create a disadvantage to the detriment of transactions involving the securities of foreign companies carried out by companies liable for corporation tax in the first Member State, mean that that State, where it has been decided to grant a concession in response to the double taxation, goes beyond waiving its right to receive the tax revenue that it would derive from the imposition of corporation tax on the dividends in question?

---
#### Hector Arturo OROPEZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-15940.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

*827Hector Arthuro Oropeza, San Quentin, CA, pro se.

Patricia Webber Heim, Esq., AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Hector Arturo Oropeza appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Oropeza contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2001 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certifí-cate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Oropeza raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Oropeza’s requests for judicial notice are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         124,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,315
<INVENTORY>                                     46,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,753
<PP&E>                                       1,117,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                 398,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,602,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,802
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           499
<OTHER-SE>                                     731,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,602,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               562,892
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   825
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,402
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,629
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
<FN>
<F1>EPS Primary represents basic net income per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Marvin Rounick, President and Chief Executive Officer of Deb Shops, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:     (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJuly 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: September 10, 2007                                    /s/ Marvin Rounick   Marvin Rounick   President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



NANOGEN, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, David Ludvigson,
President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  |                                                                                          
|--------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |  | 
|August 16, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID LUDVIGSON                                                                      
|                |  |  |  | David Ludvigson President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2463

___________ Lynn Murray, a minor, by * Lesa Murray, her mother and * natural guardian; Lesa Murray, * individually, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America; * Department of the Army, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 2004 Filed: August 27, 2004

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge, and DORR, 1 District Judge.

___________ SMITH, Circuit Judge. Seventeen-year-old Jessica Ann Baker and fourteen-year-old Lynn Murray were involved in a tragic single-car automobile accident. Baker, the driver, was en route to Westbrook-Walnut Grove High School where she and Murray were students.2Murray also has claims pending in Minnesota state court.

3 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2- On the way, Baker lost control of the car and was killed. Her passenger, Murray, was severely injured. Murray (and her mother) filed suit against the United States of America, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). In her suit, Murray alleged that Baker was a member of the Minnesota Army National Guard's "Delayed Training Program," which allowed Baker to satisfy her training obligation by attending school "in proper uniform for not less than four (4) hours each training period." Murray's complaint further alleged that Baker was wearing her uniform as she drove to school, and–at the moment of the collision–Baker was engaged in a recruitment conversation with Murray. Additionally, Murray alleged that Baker was transporting National Guard recruitment brochures in her vehicle on the day of the accident. Thus, Murray contends that the government is liable for her injuries under the FTCA.

The district court 3 granted summary judgment in favor of the government and dismissed the case. Murray appeals the grant of summary judgment and urges that the district court erred when it determined that she failed to state a claim under the FTCA. The district court found that Baker was neither a federal employee nor was she acting within the scope of her federal employment at the time of the accident. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Gen. Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 320 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 2003). After our review of the record, we agree that–at the time of the accident–Baker was not a federal employee. Walsh v. United States , 31 F.3d 696, 699 (8th Cir. 1994). Consequently, Murray's claim of negligence under the FTCA cannot stand. St. John v. United States , 240 F.3d 671, 676 (8th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________