alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019246EN.01001401.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2019 — PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR v Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

(Case C-394/19)

(2019/C 246/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

Question referred

Is the principle of full effectiveness of the rules of European Law and the protection of those rules, as defined in the Francovich and Brasserie du pêcheur judgments, in conjunction with Directive 2004/38/EC, (1) to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a Member State, in circumstances where the right of residence of a foreign national has been withdrawn without prior consideration of proportionality, as a result of an error in transposition into domestic law, to cover, within the framework of its welfare system, the basic needs of the applicant other than medical needs, until the applicant’s position as regards the right of residence has been determined in conformity with EU law?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Miranda, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered July 10, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metalline Mining Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: March 9, 2011
By
/s/ Timothy BarryTimothy Barry, President and Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0074

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. BRICE WILLIAM WILKE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant ’ s opening brief filed electronically on June 8, 2021 , this Court has determined that the brie f does not comply with R

ule 1 2 and must be supplemented as provided below

. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i), appellants must attach an “appendix that includes the relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury instruction(s), ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any written memorandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript containing any oral ruling in support” to an opening brief. The appendix to the App ellant ’ s opening brief did not contain the relevant documents. Accordingly, while the Court accepts filing of the opening brief , the Appellant shall file ten copies of an appendix including the relevant document(s) from which he appeals

. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Appellant file ten copie s of an appendix including the relevant documents from which his appeal is taken within ten ( 10) days of the date of this Order with the Clerk of this Court and that the Appellant serve copies of this appendix on all parties of record. The Clerk is directe d to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to all parties of record. Electronically signed by: Ingrid Gustafson Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2021

06/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0074
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
three-month period ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             230,034
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   293,983
<PP&E>                                           4,585,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                     170,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,708,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               74,927
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        16,414,666
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,781,486)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,708,107
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   204,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (204,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (204,429)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (204,429)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
S. Con. Res. 32 Agreed to December 7, 2011

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 470) an Act to 

further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power 

generated at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes, the Clerk of 

the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections: 

(1) In the second sentence of section 105(a)(2)(B) of the 

Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619(a)) (as added 

by section 2(d)), strike ‘‘General’’ and insert ‘‘Conformed General’’. 

(2) In section 2(e), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ and insert 

‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

(3) In section 2(f), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ and insert 

‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

(4) In section 2(g), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ and insert 

‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40111 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ROY DIXON; LEONARD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-94-CR-9 September 5, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roy Dixon and Leonard W illiams appeal from their jury

convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail
fraud, and money laundering, as well as for the underlying

substantive offenses of mail and wire fraud. We have reviewed each
issue that they have raised.2

The district court did not err in calculating the ir offense
levels by referring to the money-laundering guideline, U.S.S.G. §

2S1.1, because of t he related offenses of conviction, it carried
the highest offense level. S ee § 3D1.3(a). Dixon has not shown
that the district court abused its discretion by departing upward

in imposin g his sentence given the court’s finding that there

existed aggravating circumstances not adequately taking into
account by the Sentencing Commission. See § 5K2.0, p.s. Because
Williams did not appeal the magistrate judge’s pretrial discovery
ruling to the district court, this court is without jurisdiction to

consider the issue in this appeal. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing,

Inc. , 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). Nor has Williams

est ablished an “actual injury” as is required to support his
inadequate-access-to-the-courts assertion. S ee Lewis v. Casey , 116

S. Ct. 2174 (1996). The evidence was more than sufficient to

convict Williams, as it is not this Court’s duty to second-guess

the credibili ty of witnesses such as Ronnie Raggs. Finally,

because Williams had shown no error, his cumulative-error

contention is meritless. S ee Derden v. McNeel , 987 F.2d 1453, 1458
(5th Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied , 508 U.S. 960 (1993).

AFFIRMED

.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129526 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129526 

 COA: 260268 

Muskegon CC: 86-027607-FH 

TIMOTHY PAUL KEENAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGen Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy M. Shannon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Sean A. Cassidy, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                      |  |     |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                  
|                      |  |     |  | Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                      
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                         
|                      |  |     |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)               
|                      |  |    
|Dated: August 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Sean A. Cassidy                                           
|                      |  |     |  | Sean A. Cassidy                                               
|                      |  |     |  | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer                    
|                      |  |     |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 36 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 361
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 36

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
    Relations Board relating to representation election procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2012

  Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coats, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
 Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, 
   Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. 
    Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
 Moran, Mr. Paul, Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
Wicker, and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
  was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

                             April 19, 2012

    Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c); placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
    Relations Board relating to representation election procedures.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to 
representation election procedures (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 80138 
(December 22, 2011)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 361

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 36

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
    Relations Board relating to representation election procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 19, 2012

    Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c); placed on the 
                                calendar
```
# C_2019103EN.01005001.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/50

---

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

(Case T-31/19)

(2019/C 103/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included;

| — | if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision;

| — | order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,795,000
<SECURITIES>                                39,078,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,266,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,506,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            67,271,000
<PP&E>                                       3,319,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 762,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,522,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,516,000
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       216,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,306,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,522,000
<SALES>                                      5,150,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,150,000
<CGS>                                        9,177,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,712,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               500,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,817,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,817,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,817,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 35092.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on July 15, 2021.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

 This meeting will also discuss: Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices. Information for which disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-15550 Filed 7-19-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P