alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019187EN.01005502.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/55

---

Action brought on 16 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-316/19)

(2019/C 187/59)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Rous Demiri)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

| — | Pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission asks the Court of Justice to declare that, by unilaterally seizing from the premises of the Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the ESCB’s and the Eurosystem’s tasks and by unfairly cooperating with the ECB on that subject, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 39 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission asks the Court of Justice to declare that, by unilaterally seizing from the premises of the Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the ESCB’s and the Eurosystem’s tasks and by unfairly cooperating with the ECB on that subject, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 39 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union.

| — | The Commission also asks the Court to order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission also asks the Court to order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The search and seizure at the premises of the Bank of Slovenia on 6 July 2016 undermined the privileges attaching to the archives of the Union, as provided for in Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 39 of Protocol No 4 and Articles 2 and 22 of Protocol No 7, in conjunction with Article 18 of the latter protocol, and as provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. The search and seizure were carried out unilaterally, without the ECB’s consent, and, on the assumption of a disagreement between the ECB and the Slovene bodies, without a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Despite repeated warnings, the Slovene bodies responsible for the seizure did not attempt to separate documents forming part of the archives of the Union and did not constructively discuss the matter with the ECB.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 492 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding 

for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2013. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

after fiscal year 2013. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COR4 PORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING 

5 AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2013. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 396 of the Communica7 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subsection: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 492 IS

1 ‘‘Prohibition on Federal Funds After Fiscal Year 2013 

2 ‘‘(n) No Federal funds may be made available to the 

3 Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 

4 2013.’’. 

5 (b) CORPORATION PROHIBITED FROM ACCEPTING

6 FEDERAL FUNDS.—Subsection (g) of section 396 of the 

7 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(g)) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘subject 

10 to paragraph (3)(C),’’ before ‘‘obtain’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

12 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; 

13 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

14 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

15 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

17 subparagraph: 

18 ‘‘(C) accepting funds from the Federal 

19 Government after fiscal year 2013.’’. 

20 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 396 of the 

21 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396) is further 

22 amended— 

23 (1) in subsection (k)(3)(A)(iv)(II), by inserting 

24 ‘‘through fiscal year 2013’’ after ‘‘amounts re25 ceived’’; and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 492 IS

1 (2) in subsection (m)— 

2 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting 

3 ‘‘through fiscal year 2013’’ after ‘‘every three 

4 years thereafter’’; and 

5 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and 

6 through fiscal year 2013,’’ after ‘‘1989,’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 27
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61592) pertaining to
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 30.

    


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
**Certification      of Chief Executive Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing**

**Financial      Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | **•** |   | fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **•** |   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |  /s/                Robert A. Placek |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |  **Name:** |  **Robert                A. Placek** |   |
|   |   |   |   | **Title:** | **Chairman                of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive                Officer)** |   |
|   |   |   |   | **Date:** | **July                12, 2006** |   |

----
ex10-36.htm


    
      

      

    



    EXHIBIT
10.36

    


    


    Overview
of Compensation Arrangements for Preston D. Swafford Effective as of July 1,
2009

    


    Effective
as of July 1, 2009, Tom Kilgore approved the following compensation arrangements
for Preston D. Swafford:

    


    
      	
              ·  

            	
              A
      base salary of $525,000

            


    

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Executive
      Annual Incentive Plan opportunity of 80 percent of salary beginning with
      fiscal year 2009

            


    

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Executive
      Long-Term Incentive Plan opportunity of 100 percent of salary beginning
      with the performance cycle ending on September 30,
  2009

            


    

    


    In
addition, Mr. Kilgore approved a performance arrangement that will provide Mr.
Swafford, as long as he remains responsible for managing and directing TVA’s
Nuclear Power Group, the opportunity to receive annual performance awards for
improvements in the overall performance of any of TVA’s nuclear plants based on
nuclear power industry peer evaluations.  Under the arrangement, Mr.
Swafford will receive a lump-sum performance award of $100,000 following each
fiscal year that at least one nuclear plant in TVA’s generation portfolio
achieves an improved performance evaluation.  In the event the
performance of any plant drops below that achieved in the most recent evaluation
of the plant, no award will be made.  Mr. Swafford is eligible to
receive these annual performance awards based on evaluations completed in 2010
and beyond.  All awards will be recommended by the Chief Operating
Officer and approved by the CEO at the end of each fiscal year.
#### Jaspreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74515.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011.

Filed July 14, 2011.

Jeffrey Martins, Law Offices of Jeffrey Martins, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Drew Brinkman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Jaspreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that petitioner’s asylum application was untimely. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per cu-riam). Thus, we dismiss the asylum claim.

We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal based on an adverse credibility finding and the failure of petitioner to provide easily available corroborating evidence. As the BIA found, the petitioner provided inconsistent, vague statements of his political activities with regard to the *361candidates he supported and the year he voted in India. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2001) (upholding adverse credibility finding), *superceded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir.2010). Petitioner also failed to provide easily available corroborating evidence of his claim. *See id.*(upholding failure to provide corroboration given negative credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony and corroboration, his withholding of removal claim fails. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the BIA should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2019213EN.01002101.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/21

---

Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Drex Technologies SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-414/16 Drex Technologies v Council

(Case C-348/19 P)

(2019/C 213/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Drex Technologies SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-414/16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-414/16);

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Joseph Torrice

*Kent Drager,*assistant public defender, and *G. Douglas Nash,*public defender, in support of the petition.

*John O'Meara,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 29, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 75, is denied.
#### Mattie LOMAX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI MAYOR, etc., et al., Defendants, Officer Nunez, incarcerated for selling drugs, Officer Garcia, Sergeant Baralt, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-12280

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 3, 2011.

Mattie Lomax, Miami, FL, pro se.

John A. Greco, Office of the City Attorney, Ergio I. Fernandez, David M. Gold-stein, Attorney at Law, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mattie Lomax, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s denial of her motions to recuse the district court judge and demand for a jury trial on her claim of malicious prosecution. The district court denied the motions as moot. On appeal, Lomax argues against the district court’s earlier dismissal of her claim of malicious prosecution brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We review an order of the district court denying a motion for recusal for an abuse of discretion. *Draper v. Reynolds,*369 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2004). Whether a case is moot is a question of law that we review de novo. *Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach County, Fla.,*382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2004).

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. *Brooks v.*
      *460
      *Georgia State Bd. of Elections,*59 F.3d 1114, 1118 (11th Cir.1995). A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. *U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty,*445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1209, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980).

In the instant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lo-max’s motions for recusal and demand for a jury trial. There was no further judicial labor to be undertaken by the district court in the case, rendering Lomax’s motions and demand moot.

Upon careful review of the record, and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find no error and affirm.

AFFIRMED.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40886 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERMAN ALONSO GRAMAJO-MURALLES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-126-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender representing German Alonso Gramajo-Muralles has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gramajo-Muralles has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. 01-40886 -2- responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### In re BAKER. In the matter of the application of William H. Baker for the removal of Jerome J. Bromley and Charles Jones from the office of assessors in the town of Schuyler Falls, Clinton county.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898.)

No opinion. Motion denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin QUEMADO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10521.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*360Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Dec. 29, 2008.

Darren W.K. Ching, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Georgia K. McMillen, Esquire, Wailuku Maui, HI, Marvin Quemado, Jr., Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marvin Quemado, Jr. appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 166-month sentence for conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, obstructing interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951, and using, carrying and discharging a firearm in relation to the robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Quemado’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, 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 March 31, 2008
Form 10-Q 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:
May 20, 2008

| | /s/HAL M. KRISBERGHHal M. Krisbergh Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

            LORAL ORION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES, A DEBTOR IN POSSESSION
          COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES

                                             THREE  MONTHS  ENDED MARCH 31,
                                             ------------------------------
                                                  2004        2003
                                                --------    --------
Loss before income taxes                        $(23,251)   $ (5,606)
Plus fixed charges:
   Interest expense                                  207       3,250
Less: capitalized interest                          (207)       (330)
                                                --------    --------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges        (23,251)     (2,686)
Fixed charges (1)                                   (207)     (3,250)
                                                --------    --------
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges   $(23,458)   $ (5,936)
                                                ========    ========

(1) Fixed charges includes the accrual of interest on all debt obligations
    through July 15, 2003, the date of the Company's Chapter 11 filing.


                                       26
#### Sebastian X. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Defendant-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.

No. 11-6072.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Sebastian X. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sebastian X. Moore appeals the district court’s orders denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Moore v. Beck,*No. 5:08-ct-03017-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2009) & 2010 WL 5140008 (Dec. 9, 2010). Moore’s “Bias Motion” and motion for “Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c) Judgment on the Pleadings” are 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.

*AFFIRMED.*