alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020077EN.01002701.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Ċivili Prim’Awla — Ġurisdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali (Malta) lodged on 5 December 2019 — Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru

(Case C-896/19)

(2020/C 77/38)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Qorti Ċivili Prim’Awla — Ġurisdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Repubblika

Defendant: Il-Prim Ministru

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the second [subparagraph] of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read separately or together, be considered to be applicable with respect to the legal validity of Articles 96, 96A and 100 of the Constitution of Malta? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the second [subparagraph] of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read separately or together, be considered to be applicable with respect to the legal validity of Articles 96, 96A and 100 of the Constitution of Malta?

| 2. | If the first question elicits an affirmative answer, should the power of the Prime Minister in the process of the appointment of members of the judiciary in Malta be considered to be in conformity with Article 19(1) TEU and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, considered as well in the light of Article 96A of the Constitution, which entered into effect in 2016? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question elicits an affirmative answer, should the power of the Prime Minister in the process of the appointment of members of the judiciary in Malta be considered to be in conformity with Article 19(1) TEU and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, considered as well in the light of Article 96A of the Constitution, which entered into effect in 2016?

| 3. | If the power of the Prime Minister is found to be incompatible, should this fact be taken into consideration with regard to future appointments or should it affect previous appointments as well? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the power of the Prime Minister is found to be incompatible, should this fact be taken into consideration with regard to future appointments or should it affect previous appointments as well?

---
November 5, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CEDRIC TRAVAUGHN HOPES, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00403-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 10.9



|                  |  |                           
|----------------- |  | --------------------------
|BEA Systems, Inc. |  | 2315 North First Street   
|                  |  | San Jose, California 95131
|                  |  | Telephone: +1.408.570.8000
|                  |  | Facsimile: +1.408.570.8901
|                  |  | www.bea.com               

LOGO

April 25, 2007

Mark Carges

2315 N. First Street

San Jose, CA 95110



|RE: | FY08 Compensation Awards
|--- | ------------------------

Dear Mark:

I am happy to advise you that the Compensation Committee has approved the following FY08 Cash and Equity Rewards in recognition of your contributions over the last
fiscal year.

Base Salary and Bonus Potential

Effective May 1, 2007, your new annual base salary will be $475,000, payable in accordance with our regular payroll cycle. This represents a 18.75% adjustment. Your target bonus will be 75% of your base salary in accordance with our
FY08 Executive Staff Bonus Plan. The Plan document will be sent under separate cover. Thus, your On-Target-Earnings (OTE) will be $831,250.

Equity

The Compensation Committee also approved the granting of aNon-Qualified Stock Option to purchase 180,000 shares of Company common
stock with our standard 4 year vesting for options as well as 60,000 Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) with our standard 4 year vesting for RSUs. The option will be granted in accordance with our standard equity granting practices as soon
as practicable following the Q1 FY08 earnings announcement. The RSUs will be granted in accordance with our standard equity granting practices as soon as practicable after the Company becomes current in filing its financial statements with the SEC.

Mark, I deeply appreciate your contributions and look forward to FY08 with optimism and excitement. Thanks for all of your hard work!



|          
|----------
|Sincerely,
|          
|Alfred
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 26 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dav id Ant ho ny Steb bi ns
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Ri ta F. Ste bb in s an d Dav id D. Steb bi ns
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Har ris on

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 6, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 12 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Pet it io ne r Dav id A. St eb bi ns ap pe al s fro m th e jud gm en t of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 di sm is si ng hi s pr o se act io n. Upo n rev ie w of th e reco r d, we co nc lu de th at we la ck

The Hon or ab le P.K. Hol m es , III, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in th is ap pe al

. See Dies er v. Co nt ’l Cas

. Co ., 44 0 F.3 d 92 0, 92 3

(8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at jur i s d i c t i on al is su es “ wil l be rai se d su a sp on te ”). Fo ll owi ng th e di sm is sa l of hi s com pl ai nt , St eb bi ns fil ed wha t was in effect a ti m el y
m ot io n fo r po st

jud gm en t rel ie f un de r Ru le 59 (e) of t h e F e d e r a l Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e. See Os t ern eck v. Erns t & W hi nn ey , 48 9 U.S. 16 9, 17 4 (1 98 9) (“ [A] po st jud gm en t m ot io n wil l be co ns id ere d a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n whe re it in vo lv es ‘recon si de rat io n of m at te rs pr op erl y en co m pa s s ed in a de ci si on on th e m eri ts .’ ” (ci ta ti on to qu ot ed cas e om it te d) ). Tha t m ot io n rem ai ns p e n d i n g, an d un ti l th e Dis tri ct Co u r t ru le s on it , S te bb in s’s no ti ce of ap pe al wil l li e do rm an t. See Fed . R

. App

. P. 4( a)(4 )(A) (n ot in g th at if a pa rty ti m el y fil es a Ru le 59 m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

or to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t, th e ti m e t o f i le th e ap pe al ru ns fro m th e en try o f th e or de r di sp os in g of su ch m ot io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Duk e, 50 F.3 d 57 1, 57 5 (8 th Ci r.); cert . den ie d, 5 16 U.S. 88 5 (1 99 5)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t hi s ap pe al for lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barton Joseph ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-4482.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Scott Charlton Brown, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barton Joseph Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s April 15, 2011 order denying his motions to vacate the district court’s November 21, 2008 protective and repatriation order, as modified on December 9, 2008, and the court’s March 20, 2009 order holding him in civil contempt. The jurisdiction of this court to review orders originating in the district court is limited to final decisions and certain, specified, interlocutory and collateral orders. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2006); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Additionally, because the district court’s April 15 order is not a release or detention order, it is not appealable under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (2006).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
# In the **United States Court of Federal Claims**

No. 21

- 1826C

( Filed: September 14 , 2021)

( N OT FOR PUBLICATION )

TY’ESHA S. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff, Ty’esha S. Harris, filed a complaint against Defendant, the United States, in this Court. ECF No. 1. Having fully reviewed the allegations in her latest compliant, the Court finds that the instant complaint is

substantial ly identical to Ms. Harris ’s pr eviously filed compl ai nt

, which this Court

dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Harris v. United States , No.

21

- 1409 , 2021 WL 2853165 (Fed. Cl. July 7, 2021). While the Court appreciates that

Plaint iff included in this complaint more fact ual details ( and attached additional

documents ) , the central premise of the complaint is the same as the one the Court already dismissed and suffers from all the same defects. As it would be unnecessary and duplicative to reconsider the allegations raised in Ms. Harris’s instant complaint (besides for the claims being fantastical, if not patently frivolous

, see Harris , 2021 WL

2853165 at *3 ) , the Court will not “permit yet anoth er bite at the apple.” Colter v. United

States , 2020 WL 1164802, *4 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 10, 2020)

.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint. The Clerk shall enter
JUDGMENT for the government.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/Matthew H. Solomson

Matthew H. Solomson Judge
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-061V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

RICHARD CLARK, *

*

Petitioner, * 

* Filed: April 26, 2013

v. *

* Attorney Fees and Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2I issued a 

decision on September 26, 2012. On April 25, 2013, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Stipulation of 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The parties’ stipulation requests a total payment of $21,000.00, 

representing all attorney’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). In accordance 

with General Order #9, the stipulation includes a statement that Petitioner incurred no 

reimbursable costs in pursuit of his claim.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis 

for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. 

Accordingly, I hereby award the total $21,000.00, as a lump sum in the form of a check 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information 

and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be 

available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Isaiah Kalinowski, forwarded to the 

main office of Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, located at 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, 

Sarasota, Florida 34236.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr. 

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master
# C_2019328EN.01007001.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/70

---

Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-555/19)

(2019/C 328/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1355/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Ali Tabrizi and Dona Tabrizi

,

Appellant s

,

v.

City Of Austin; Greg Guernsey, in his

Official Capacity as Director of Planning

and Zoning Department, et al.

,

Appellee s

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 209

- CV

Appeal from the

53 rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 002968 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellants’ unopposed motion to extend the deadline for filing

a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is GRANTED. Appellants are directed to file a

motion to reinstate the appeal on or before January 24, 2017

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st day of November , 2016

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

June 2 , 2016.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00403

- CR

IN RE VINCENT E. BEA SLEY , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1357233



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 16, 2016, relator Vincent E. Beasley filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the presiding judge of the 228th District Court of Harris County to dismiss with prejudice the2

indictment in relator’s sexual

- assaul t c onviction because it allegedly constitutes
double jeopar d y

. Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W .3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Therefore, this court has no mandamus jurisdiction in matters related to petitions for writ of habeas corpus in criminal c ases. See In re Briscoe , 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (“We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07 .” ).
Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-K

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



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Gary D. OwensName:

Gary D. OwensTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDecember 19, 2005
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Brent W. Christensen, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meade Instruments Corp.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting
Date: January 7, 2005
By: /s/ Brent W. Christensen
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLAVOND GALLOP,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 412 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:74
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:75
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:76
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:77
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:78
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:79
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:80
Case: 1:02-cv-05127 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/03/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:81
# Official Journal L 32/4 Fe

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 32 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 484 February 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 32

English edition

Legislation

Volume 484 February 2005

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Council |
| | * | 2005/75/EC:Council Decision of 26 April 2004 on the accession of the Community to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Council

*

2005/75/EC:Council Decision of 26 April 2004 on the accession of the Community to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.