alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019399EN.01003201.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — ‘Soho Group’ SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-686/19)

(2019/C 399/37)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Soho Group’ SIA

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, an autonomous concept of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, an autonomous concept of EU law?

| 2. | Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Nicholas Financial, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the registration statement (No. 333-143245) on Form S-8 of Nicholas Financial, Inc. of our reports dated June 16, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Nicholas Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
Company) and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in the Companys 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC
|Atlanta, Georgia     
|June 16, 2008
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                              CURAGEN CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED                NINE MONTHS ENDED 
                                                     SEPTEMBER 30,                     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                           -------------------------------    -------------------------------
                                               1998             1997               1998              1997    
                                           -------------  ---------------     --------------  ---------------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>                 <C>             <C> 
Net loss                                    ($4,511,685)     ($2,353,158)      ($10,178,215)     ($4,349,728)  
Preferred dividends                                   0          (17,106)          (508,435)         (51,318)  
                                           -------------   --------------     --------------  ---------------

Net loss attributable to common 
 stockholders                               ($4,511,685)     ($2,370,264)      ($10,686,650)     ($4,401,046)  
                                           -------------   --------------     --------------  ---------------   

Basic and diluted net loss per share                                                                           
 attributable to common stockholders             ($0.34)          ($0.27)            ($0.90)          ($0.53)  
                                           -------------   --------------     --------------  ---------------

Weighted average number of shares 
 used in computing basic and diluted 
 net loss per share attributable to 
 common stockholders                         13,203,058         8,871,987         11,831,393        8,358,307  
                                           -------------   ---------------    --------------  ---------------
</TABLE> 

                                      15
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abraha Tesfay, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the unavailability of an interpreter to aid the defendant in testifying before the Grand Jury. The prosecution had presented sworn testimony that defendant was able to communicate in English, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court was justified in finding that it was not necessary to appoint an interpreter to protect defendant’s rights.

We have examined defendant’s other arguments and we find them to be without merit. Moreover, the assertion of prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for review as a matter of law. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, *1002Flynn, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3,274,608
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,075,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                   584,610
<INVENTORY>                                    349,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,301,237
<PP&E>                                         1,019,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,124,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,802,933
<BONDS>                                        431,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       39,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,850,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,124,547
<SALES>                                        2,645,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,033,369
<CGS>                                          2,714,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,003,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (27,186)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             54,921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (712,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (712,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,460,080)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,172,641)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.65)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2019103EN.01005002.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 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-32/19)

(2019/C 103/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that her name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017, (4) notwithstanding the fact that she is no longer Deputy Prosecutor General and is not related to the Venezuelan governing authorities.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).

---
# C_2020371EN.01001202.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

---

Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS

(Case T-272/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Public policy - Delay - Calculation of the time limit - Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the EEAS decision of 15 June 2018 informing the applicant that she did not fulfil all of the conditions of employment laid down in Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and that she could not be recruited as a member of the contract staff of the EEAS and, second, of the decision of the EEAS of 14 January 2019 rejecting her complaint of 14 September 2018, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | TO shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TO shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

David E. Hershberg, Chief Executive Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi, Chief Financial Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Globecomm Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the ‘‘Quarterly Report’’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Globecomm Systems Inc.

|                              |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|------------------------------|--|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 10, 2007 |  |  | By:  /s/ DAVID E. HERSHBERG                                                                  |
|                         |  |  |     David E. HershbergChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer                                                                                                                 |
|                         |  |  | By:  /s/ ANDREW C. MELFI                             |
|                         |  |  |     Andrew C. MelfiVice President, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer                                                                                                                |
|                              |

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

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Date: Case No.

Case Title: Judge: 

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

The following error was found in document no. 

The document has been filed in the incorrect case.

The document is filed in the correct case, but the case number and case title do not match.

The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry

The incorrect file date was entered.

The incorrect type of event was used to describe the document.

The title of the document does not match the text of the entry.

The entry is a duplicate of entry no.

Other: 

Corrective action taken by the Clerk:

The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. 

The following notation has been added to the text of the entry: (Linked document has the

incorrect case title or linked document has the incorrect case number.)

The correct document (PDF file) has been linked to the entry.

The file date has been corrected.

The text of the entry has been edited.

The text of the entry has been edited to read Duplicate filing of document number.

Other: 

Corrective action required by the filer:

The document must be refiled.

Other: 

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

By: s/______________________________

Deputy Clerk

NDIL (10/05) Notice of Correction

3/11/2011 02cr892-2

USA vs ENAAM ARNAOUT

Conlon

286

✔

Signature order modified, removing pages 3-16 from another case.

✔

Alberta Rone

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 287 Filed: 03/11/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1909
#### HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; DII Industries LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NL INDUSTRIES INC., Formerly Known as National Lead Co.; Tremont LLC; Tre Holding Corp., Formerly Known as Bentonite Corp.; Tre Management Co., Formerly Known as Baroid Management Co., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-20277.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2009.

Donald E. Godwin, Godwin Pappas Ronquillo, Dallas, TX, Robert Alan York, God-win Pappas Ronquillo, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Russell Hardin, Jr., Rusty Hardin & Associates, Houston, TX, Andrew Lee Ramzel, Administaff, Kingwood, TX, Joel Louis Herz, Law Offices of Joel L. Herz, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiffs appeal a judgment confirming an arbitration award. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel.

The district court, in a thorough and convincing opinion, correctly held that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the steep burden required to overturn an arbitration award. One of the issues presented is whether the “manifest disregard” standard for reviewing arbitration awards survives *Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel*Inc., 552 U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). We need not decide that question, because the plaintiffs have not met the “manifest disregard” test even if it is still applicable.

The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

On the day before oral argument, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the appeal, or in the alternative to stay issuance of an opinion, and for limited remand to allow the district court to consider a motion filed contemporaneously in that court for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on a claim of newly-discovered evidence. We DENY the motion filed in this court but express no view on the merits of the motion pending in the district court.

By issuing the mandate, we cede jurisdiction. The district court now has whatever jurisdiction it would have had, absent an appeal, to consider post-judgment motions. *See Standard Oil Co. v. United States,*429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976) (per curiam); *see also Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Perambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara,*2003 WL 21027134, at *3-*6, 2003 U.S.App. LEXIS 27765, at *13-*19 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2003) (per curiam) (unpublished).

*

 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.
Order filed December 28, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 01084

- CV

____________ In the Interest of A.M.T., a child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 05757J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case. The notice of appeal was filed November 15, 2018. Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s
record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to b e brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsiblefor ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).

The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if

necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). Because the reporter’s record has not bee n filed timely in this accelerated appeal, we issue the following order:

We order Rachel Gamez , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal
on or before Januar y 7, 2019. If Rachel Gamez does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failin g to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                             579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                       194
<INVENTORY>                                     19,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,059
<PP&E>                                          72,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                (26,334)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,345
<BONDS>                                         97,643
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,121
<SALES>                                        100,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,162
<CGS>                                           82,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (63)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        91
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,043)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Selby, Appellant.

Four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), all rendered November 15, 1983, affirmed *(see, People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520; *People v Friedman,*39 NY2d 463; *People v Stubbs,*92 AD2d 923). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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 Extraordinary Relief is 

DENIED.