alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fedie R. Redd, Appellant, v Edward A. Battisti et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 84]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered February 8, 2011, denying a petition seeking to vacate a post-hearing arbitration award finding that petitioner was guilty of all of the specified charges and that respondent Division of Earole (DOF) had just cause for terminating her from her position as a parole officer, granting DOF’s cross motion to confirm the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CFLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Fetitioner failed to establish that the arbitration award violated public policy, was irrational, or was in violation of any of the grounds enumerated in CFLR 7511 (b) (1) (see *Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York,*94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]). The record amply supports the arbitrator’s finding that petitioner had violated the DOP’s Code of Conduct by making false accusations of stalking, which resulted in her arrest. There is no basis for disturbing the arbitrator’s rejection of petitioner’s account of events (see *Matter of Cherry v New York State Ins. Fund,*83 AD3d 446, 447 [2011]). Indeed, an investigating detective testified that at the time of the alleged incident, the purported stalker was not even in petitioner’s vicinity, as demonstrated by store receipts, bank ATM records, and security surveillance video. In light of petitioner’s responsibilities as a parole officer, which depend in *677large part upon her veracity, her misconduct warranted the penalty of termination.

Petitioner’s allegations of racial and gender bias are speculative and without any evidentiary basis in the record. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Optical Cable Corporation: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-09433 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-103108 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-115575 on Form S-8, and RegistrationStatement No. 333-128163 on Form S-8 of Optical Cable Corporation of our report dated January 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Optical Cable Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of October 31,2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2010, which report is incorporated by reference in theOctober 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Optical Cable Corporation. Our report refers to the Company’s adoption of the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 160, *Noncontrolling Interestsin Consolidated Financial Statements–an amendment of ARB No. 51* (included in FASB Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 810-10, *Consolidation–Overall*), as of November 1, 2009.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40717

TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIMAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; FRANK HOKE; JOHN BECRAFT , Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CV

- 357

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Timothy Scott Harriman, Texas prisoner # 677187, seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). He filed a 42 U.S. C. § 1983 action alleging that he was denied access to the courts due to deficiencies in a prison law library. The district court dismissed his action as frivolous, denied leave to appeal IFP, and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 26, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40717 Document: 00512454063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2013No. 13

- 40717

By moving to proceed IFP, Harriman challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not in good faith. S ee Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The closest Harriman comes to addressing the district court’s reason for dismissing his action

— a lack of actu al harm

— is a bare assertion that he was unable to learn of the limitation period for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition because the defendants “concealed” some law books behind the counter to prevent prisoners from tearing out pages. He does not even sugg est that the materials were not available for the asking. In addition, Harriman has never identified a non

- frivolous claim that he might have raised at any time but for the alleged deprivation of legal materials. See Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requiring a prisoner to set forth some non

- frivolous underlying claim that was lost because of the defendants’ wrongful actions). Accordingly, the motion for IFP status is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5 TH C IR . R.
42.2. This frivolous appeal earns Harriman a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385

– 87 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s dismissal as frivolous was also a strike. See id. Harrima n is warned that if he accumulates one more strike by bringing another frivolous action or appeal, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action while incarcerated or detained unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1 915(g).

2 Case: 13-40717 Document: 00512454063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2013
Exhibit 32.2




Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Joel Boyarski, the Principal
Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q/A of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and information contained in the Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30,
2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be
retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





Dated:
      March 31,  2010
            
            /s/  Joel
      BoyarskiJoel
      BoyarskiChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### In the Matter of Mary A. Burnell, Respondent, v Jack S. Burnell, Appellant. In the Matter of Jack S. Burnell, Appellant, v Mary A. Burnell, Respondent.

—Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Niagara County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Family Court properly entered a judgment against appellant for the arrears due under a prior support order of that court, because the defaulting party did not show "good cause for failure to make application for relief from the judgment or order directing payment *prior to the accrual of such arrears”*(Family Ct Act § 460 [1] [e]; emphasis added; *see also, Matter of La Duke v La Duke,*110 AD2d 930; *Malta v Malta,*87 AD2d 988).

However, the court erred in summarily denying appellant’s request for modification of the support order based upon an alleged change in circumstances. "When a party seeks modification of a prior support order based upon a change in circumstances, the court should conduct a full hearing to determine whether the alleged change warrants modification” *1013
      *(Van Neil v Van Neil,*93 AD2d 986; *see,*Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]; *Lewis v Gellman,*105 AD2d 1090).

Furthermore, the court erred in refusing to order compulsory financial disclosure by the parties (Family Ct Act § 424-a). (Appeal from order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—arrears, modification.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
# C_2022171EN.01002501.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case T-636/19) (1)

(REACH - Substances of very high concern - Establishment of a candidate list of substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Decision identifying 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides as a substance fulfilling the criteria laid down for inclusion in the list - Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 171/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemours Netherlands BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana and E. Mullier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: W. Broere, N. Herbatschek and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents), ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), CHEM Trust Europe eV (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Angelet, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of ECHA’s decision ED/71/2019 of 4 July 2019, which came into force on 16 July 2019, in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (and their isomers and combinations thereof) in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chemours Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth AISBL, ClientEarth and CHEM Trust Europe Ev; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chemours Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth AISBL, ClientEarth and CHEM Trust Europe Ev;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Report**     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: May 8, 2007                                                     /s/ Mary T. Minch   Name:  Mary T. Minch   Title:  Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary   THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 375 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 997 

[Report No. 112–527] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JUNE 15, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 997 RH

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water 

contract between the United States and the East Bench 

Irrigation District. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 997 RH

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 ‘‘East Bench Irrigation 

5 District Water Contract Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT. 

7 The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract 

8 for water services between the United States and the East 

9 Bench Irrigation District, numbered 14–06–600–3593, 

10 until the earlier of— 

11 (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on 

12 which the contract would have expired if this Act 

13 had not been enacted; or 

14 (2) the date on which a new long-term contract 

15 is executed by the parties to the contract. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 375 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 997 

[Report No. 112–527] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend 

the East Bench Irrigation District. a water contract between the United States and 

JUNE 15, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          48,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,746
<PP&E>                                          10,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,160
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,205
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (503)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,533)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)


</TABLE>
#### Rynele Maurice MARDIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carolyn MARDIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-1174.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

*143Carolyn Mardis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carolyn Mardis seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this case to the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, from which it was removed. We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has instructed that “ § 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c) [ (2006) ], so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” *Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 138 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus:

> § 1447(d) bars ... review of a district court’s remand order only if the order was issued under § 1447(c) and invoked the grounds specified therein, ... either (1) that the district court granted a timely filed motion raising a defect in removal procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

*Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,*519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” *Borneman v. United States,*213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir.2000).

In this ease, the district court remanded the action because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order, and we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s “Motion to Obtain the Record by Court Order” is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.
# C_2019432EN.01003101.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/31

---

Action brought on 29 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-796/19)

(2019/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Walter Mölls, Cécile Vrignon)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

| — | declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59/EC, (1) in that it designated as the competent authority for the purposes of that directive a different authority than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59/EC, (1) in that it designated as the competent authority for the purposes of that directive a different authority than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC; (2)

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59 defines the competent authority for the purposes of that directive as ‘the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC’.

However, the Austrian legislature chose a different authority.

Instead of designating the competent authority for the purposes of Directive 2004/49 (the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology), it designated Schieneninfrastruktur-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH as the competent authority for a set of tasks covered by Directive 2007/59. According to the Commission, that is incompatible with the latter directive.

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 51).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44).

---
# C_2020215EN.01006201.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/62

---

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2020 — Mende Omalanga and Others v Council

(Joined Cases T-103/19, T-110/19 to T-113/19 and T-116/19 to T-124/19) (1)

(2020/C 215/72)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the cases T-103/19 and T-112/19 be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



/s/ Ralph T. FinkenbrinkRalph T. FinkenbrinkSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJune 15, 2009