alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01000701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Lexel

(Case C-484/19)

(2019/C 295/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexel AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Questions referred

Is it compatible with Article 49 TFEU to refuse a Swedish company a deduction for interest paid to a company which is in the same group of associated enterprises and is resident in a different Member State on the ground that the principal reason for the debt having arisen is deemed to be that the group of associated enterprises is to receive a substantial tax benefit, when such a tax benefit would not have been deemed to exist if both companies had been Swedish, since they would then have been covered by the provisions on intra-group transfers?

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU): Geneva, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Diversity Collections
                        Apple
                                    Brassica
                                    Buckwheat
                                    Celery
                                    Grape
                                    Hemp
                                    Onion
                                    Radish
                                    Squash
                                    Tart Cherry
                                    Tomato
                                    Other Seed CropsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Geneva, New York Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU) Docs







PGRU Imaging Templatesheadline bar Large imaging template (24 x 34 cm)

Medium large imaging template (17 x 23 cm)

Medium small imaging template (13 x 18 cm)

Small imaging template (9 x 16 cm)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### WILSON et al. v. BRACKEN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Arthur Wilson" and others against Thomas Bracken and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 06-2699

EDYTHE F. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

On Remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Before KASOLD, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

On May 17, 2010, the Court issued an order remanding this case based upon the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) decision in Robinson v. Shinseki, No. 2009-1176,

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9434 (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2010). However, the Court issued its order before

mandate entered on June 14, 2010. Accordingly, the May 17 order will be withdrawn and this order

issued in its stead nunc pro tunc to June 14, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Court's decision in

Robinson v. Shinseki, 22 Vet.App. 440 (2009), which affirmed the Board's denial of the appellant's

claim for disability and indemnity benefits based upon her conviction of manslaughter in her veteran

husband's death. The Federal Circuit instructed the Court to remand this matter to the Board of

Veteran' Appeals (Board) with instructions that: under Florida law intent is not necessarily an

element of the crime of manslaughter because manslaughter by act or procurement, or voluntary

manslaughter, includes the element of intent, but manslaughter by culpable negligence, or

involuntary manslaughter does not; and that a factual determination be made as to whether the

appellant intentionally and wrongfully caused the death of her veteran husband based upon the

evidence of record and any additional evidence necessary for such a determination.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the May 17 order is withdrawn. It is further

ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Board for re-adjudication consistent with

this order.

DATED: June 25, 2010, nunc pro tunc to June 14, 2010 PER CURIAM.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30457 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - CONSOLIDATED WITH No. 96-30763

- - - - - - - - - - In re: Kenneth Randall,

Petitioner.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CA-4184

- - - - - - - - - - February 3, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Randall appeals the district court’s dismissal of his fifth motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. HisNo. 96-30457 No. 96-30763 - 2 - § 2255 appeal was consolidated with his petition for writ of mandamus, which was treated as a notice of appeal. Randall asserts in his appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion that (1) the evidence seized at the time of his arrest should have been suppressed because government agents failed to “knock and announce”; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is a violation of Congress’ commerce clause power and that his firearm had no nexus with interstate commerce; (3) his conviction was a violation of double jeopardy; (4) counsel’s performance was ineffective; and (5) a 1995 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines entitles him to § 2255 relief. Randall asserts in his petition for a writ of mandamus that his § 924(c)(1) conviction was invalid under Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (1995), that the Government failed to show that he carried the firearm during and in relation to a drug crime, and that the jury was improperly instructed. The issues Randall asserts in his § 2255 appeal are frivolous and do not entitle him to § 2255 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have reviewed the record and Randall’s brief and we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of Randall’s Bailey claims. United States v. Randall , No. 88-261 (E.D. La. Apr. 11, 1996). Randall is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he has not made a substantial showing of the violation of a constitutional right. See Drinkard v. Johnson , 97 F.3d 751, 755-56 (5th Cir. 1996). Randall’s appeal is frivolous. 5th Cir.No. 96-30457 No. 96-30763 - 3 - R. 42.2. We caution Randall that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Randall is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-107595) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-18966-99,
33-46724-99, 33-50270-99, 33-57675-99, 33-62394-99, 333-17407-99, 333-25857-99,
333-53912-99, 333-80511-99, 333-107450, and 333-107451) of Noble Corporation of
our report dated March 8, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial
statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
March 8, 2005
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 Life Variable Annuity Account N, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) pertaining to
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 13.

    


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<CIK>                         0001030451
<NAME>                        Anchor Holdings, Inc.
<CURRENCY>  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997             SEP-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                           8,555                   8,555
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,290                  18,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (956)                   (956)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,741                  21,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,695                  51,695
<PP&E>                                          99,763                  99,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                (46,636)                (46,636)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,247                 123,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,230                  17,230
<BONDS>                                        100,000                 100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            10                      10
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,548)                 (4,548)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,247                 123,247
<SALES>                                         37,944                 122,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                           32,543                 103,864
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,160                   9,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   145                     232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,148                   8,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,052)                   1,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55                     855
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,107)                     293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                 (1,210)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,107)                   (917)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)                   (.67)
        

</TABLE>
#### FRIENDS OF WEINER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, Department of Agriculture, Involuntary/Third-Party Plaintiff; Weiner School District, Involuntary/Third-Party Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, v. State of ARKANSAS; Arkansas Department of Emergency Management; David Maxwell, in his official capacity; Arkansas State Board of Edu*243cation; Naccaman Williams, Dr., in his official capacity; Ben Mays, Dr., in his official capacity; Sherry Burrow, in her official capacity; Jim Cooper, in his official capacity; Brenda Gullet, in her official capacity; Samuel Ledbetter, in his official capacity; Alice Williams Mahony, in her official capacity; Toyce Newton, in her official capacity; Vickie Saviers, in her official capacity; Arkansas Department of Education; Harrisburg School District; Mike Beebe, Governor, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1052.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 14, 2011.

Filed: Dec. 15, 2011.

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Friends of Weiner School District, a non-profit citizens group, appeals from an order of the District Court1 dismissing their Commerce Clause action that alleged violations of federal and state law by Ap-pellees in connection with the administrative consolidation of the Weiner School District with the Harrisburg School District in Poinsett County, Arkansas. Upon careful de novo review, *see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Service,*450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir.2006), we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KABAL SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72866

Agency No. A096-144-922

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

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

Kabal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72866

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367

F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. 

Singh claimed in his testimony and application that he was arrested after

participating in a rally commemorating the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple, and

that he gave a speech against the Golden Temple killings. Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Singh admitted

that during his interview with an asylum officer, he lacked knowledge about the

Golden Temple attack. See id. at 1142-43 (adverse credibility finding supported

based, in part, on “how little knowledge [the petitioner] had of political activities in

India”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination because Singh testified inconsistently regarding the circumstances of

his third arrest. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007)

(inconsistencies regarding details of abduction went to the heart of the claim). In

the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not

credible, and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not
3 08-72866

that he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at

1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50816 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. LA Q U IN C E T H O M A S , al so kn ow n as La

- Q u i n ce D e- F ran ce Th om as D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 3

- CR- 2 7 0

- ALL
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L LYan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * L aqu i n ce Th om as ap pea l s t h e 24-m on t h sentence i m posedby the di st ri ct c o ur tf o l l o w i ng t he r e vo c at i o n o f hi s s upe rvi s e d r el e as e . H e a r gue s t hatt he
s e nt e nc e , w hi ch w as t he m ax i m um a l l o w e d b y s t at ut e a nd was a bo ve t he sugge st ed r ange s etf or t h by t he Sent enc i n g G ui del i nes , w as gr eat ert han
n e c e s s a r yto a c h ie v e t h e s e n t e n c in gg o a ls o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 . T h o m a s ’s sentence w i l lbe af

f i rm ed i f i ti s n ei t h er u n reasona bl e n or pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50816

2 S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. McKi n n ey , 5 2 0 F .3 d4 2 5 , 4 2 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hi n son , 4 2 9 F .3 d1 1 4 , 1 2 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In le s s th a n 1 8 m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , T h o m a s h a d m u ltip le posi t ive dru g t est s, fai l ed tw o att em pts at dru g reha bi l i t ati on , an d w as arres t ed
o n t h r e e o c c a s i o n s . Du r i n g h i s l a t e s t a r r e s t , o f f i c e r s h a d t o u s e a t as e ra nd pep per spray to b rin ghi m un der contr ol
. I n add i t i on , t h e di st ri ctcourt ap pr o pr i at e l y f

o c us e d o n Tho m as ’ s una ba t e d d r ug addi c t i o n a nd the i n ef fect iven ess of

n on - pri son san ct i on s i n treat i n g t h at ad di ct i on . Th e sentence
w as neith er un reasona bl e nor pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e. AF F I RMED.
# C_2019413EN.01002501.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings in respect of IR

(Case C-649/19)

(2019/C 413/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

IR

Questions referred

Do the rights of an accused person under Article 4 (in particular the right under Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13 (1) apply to an accused person who has been arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 8 of Framework Decision 2002/584 to be interpreted as meaning that it allows the content of a European arrest warrant to be amended with regard to the form specified in the annex, in particular the insertion of new text into that form, in relation to the rights of the requested person against the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State to challenge the validity of the national arrest warrant and of the European arrest warrant?

If the second question is answered in the negative: is it compatible with recital 12 and Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, Articles 4, 6(2) and 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/ЕU and Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter if a European arrest warrant is issued in strict compliance with the form set out in the annex (that is to say without informing the requested person about his rights against the issuing judicial authority) and the issuing judicial authority informs him about the rights to which he is entitled and sends him the relevant documents immediately after that authority becomes aware of the arrest?

If there are no other legal means for safeguarding the rights of a person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant under Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/ЕU, in particular the right under Article 4(3), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/ЕU, is Framework Decision 2002/584 valid?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40774

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR ANDRES CANTU-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-89-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Andres 

Cantu-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cantu-Garcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40774 Document: 00513385221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
No. 15-40774

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40774 Document: 00513385221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016