alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128916(57) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, GWAN JUN KIM a nd KEESOO KIM, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128916 COA: 260071 Kent CC: 03-008356-CZ KIA MOTORS AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of January 27, 2006 is considered , and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

d0424 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.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 822 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 822

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require all wage 
            withholding returns to be filed electronically.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

Mr. Coburn (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require all wage 
            withholding returns to be filed electronically.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIRED ELECTRONIC FILING OF WAGE WITHHOLDING RETURNS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 6011(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively,
            (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
        redesignated, the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(A) shall--
                            ``(i) require any person that is required 
                        to file a return containing information 
                        described in section 6051(a) to file such 
                        return on magnetic media, and
                            ``(ii) provide for waiver of the 
                        requirements of clause (i) in the case of 
                        demonstrated hardship for a person having 5 or 
                        fewer employees,'', and
            (3) by inserting ``except as provided in subparagraph 
        (A),'' before ``shall not require'' in subparagraph (B), as so 
        redesignated.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 6011(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``paragraph 
(2)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(B)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to returns filed after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021289EN.01003401.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player)

(Case T-169/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a polo player - Earlier national design - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 52(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 289/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Style & Taste, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1272/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Style & Taste and The Polo/Lauren Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Style & Taste, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Style & Taste, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
#### McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. WINTJEN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Joseph A. McLaughlin against Henry G. Wintjen.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
# C_2019399EN.01003601.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/36

---

Action brought on 10 October 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-744/19)

(2019/C 399/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that






  — | by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

declare that

—

by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1)

| — | and by not communicating such provisions to the Commission, |
| --- | --- |

—

and by not communicating such provisions to the Commission,

| — | the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of that directive;

| 2) | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its sole plea in law, the Commission claims that, by not adopting and not communicating to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130319 & (48) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan EMBRA BROWN, Petitioner, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 130319 COA: 261811 Lenawee CC: 05-001843-CK MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this C ourt. The motion for entry of default is DENIED.

l0724 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.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.



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
Annual Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby 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:



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



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/Paul KatzeffChief Executive OfficerJanuary 3, 2006
# C_2019383EN.01004401.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD

(Case C-625/19)

(2019/C 383/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: XD

Question referred

Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of its responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, its proportionality prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
# C_2019432EN.01002001.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/20

---

Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Luz Saúde, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-357/18 Luz Saúde v EUIPO – Clínica La Luz

(Case C-622/19 P)

(2019/C 432/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luz Saúde, SA (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Moreira Rato and M. Stock da Cunha, advogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clínica La Luz

By order of 5 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Luz Saúde, SA, to bear its own costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE
28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          51,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                       792
<INVENTORY>                                      8,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,858
<PP&E>                                          15,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,402
<BONDS>                                          4,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,747
<SALES>                                         26,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,725
<CGS>                                           14,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,238
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,942
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15061]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16955 and #16956; Mississippi Disaster Number 
MS-00135]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi 
(FEMA-4598-DR), dated 5/04/2021.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms. Incident Period: 02/11/2021 through 
02/19/2021.

DATES: Issued on 07/07/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: Filing Period for counties 
listed below ends on 09/07/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: Filing 
Period for counties listed below ends on 04/07/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Mississippi, dated 5/04/2021, is hereby amended to include the counties 
listed below. Please contact the SBA disaster customer service center 
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e2a273d2f3d3a2b3c2d3b3d3a21232b3c3d2b3c38272d2b0e3d2c2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa9e93899b898e9f88998f898e95979f88899f888c93999fba89989bd49d958c">[email protected]</span></a> or by phone at 1-800-659-
2955 to request an application. Applications for physical damages may 
be filed until 09/07/2021 and applications for economic injury may be 
file until 04/07/2022.

Primary Counties: Clay, Holmes, Quitman, Webster, Wilkinson.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-15061 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Motion Granted; Order filed September 22, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00586

- CR

____________ EX PARTE WILLIAM SOLOMON LEWIS

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Har ris Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 167 8565



### ORDER

Appellant filed a motion requesting to review the record and file a pro se
br ief. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 185th District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial rec ord in ac corda nce with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before October 7, 2020 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant f ile h i s pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
# C_2020313EN.01002801.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/28

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2020 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)

(Case T-170/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 313/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sherpa Europe, SL (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and M. J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 (Case R 523/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Núcleo de comunicaciones y control and Sherpa Europe.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Sherpa Europe, SL, is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sherpa Europe, SL, is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL, shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL, shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

GERALD HALL JR.,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL ZAKEN, SUPERINTENDENT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 55 EM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8

th day of December, 2021, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
# C_2020045EN.01002601.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/26

---

Action brought on 19 November 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-842/19)

(2020/C 45/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Armenia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 12 April 2018 delivered in Case C-110/17, Commission v Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 12 April 2018 delivered in Case C-110/17, Commission v Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| — | impose on the Kingdom of Belgium a penalty payment of EUR 22 076.55 per day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, has been complied with, payable to an account specified by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Kingdom of Belgium a penalty payment of EUR 22 076.55 per day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, has been complied with, payable to an account specified by the Commission;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay a minimum lump sum of EUR 2 029 000 or, in the event that the amount of that minimum lump sum is exceeded, of a daily lump sum of EUR 4 905.90 from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-110/17, referred to above, until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case or until the date of compliance with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, whichever is the earlier, payable to an account specified by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay a minimum lump sum of EUR 2 029 000 or, in the event that the amount of that minimum lump sum is exceeded, of a daily lump sum of EUR 4 905.90 from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-110/17, referred to above, until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case or until the date of compliance with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, whichever is the earlier, payable to an account specified by the Commission;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission criticises the Kingdom of Belgium for not having taken the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 12 April 2018.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**JAMES HAMMONDS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**KARA N. TEMPLETON, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 32 WM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Application for E xtraordinary Relief is** 

DENIED

**.**