alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019319EN.01003001.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/30

---

Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/19)

(2019/C 319/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain), Global Special Steel Products, SA (Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Blanco Carol and B. Martos Stevenson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible;

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2019; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2019; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, which dates back to a request for inability to pay submitted in February 2000 in the context of proceedings in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel, is brought against the European Commission’s decision rejecting the request of 20 December 2018 to defer payment in the light of the applicants’ financial situation.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the contested decision was adopted without the applicants being given the opportunity to set out their point of view in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the contested decision was adopted without the applicants being given the opportunity to set out their point of view in that regard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the rejection of the request submitted by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the rejection of the request submitted by the applicants.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law when assessing the applicants’ financial situation and their ability to pay the fine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law when assessing the applicants’ financial situation and their ability to pay the fine.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted the contested decision in breach of the general principle of collegiality, thereby vitiating that decision by a lack of competence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted the contested decision in breach of the general principle of collegiality, thereby vitiating that decision by a lack of competence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---
Presidential Documents

39939 

Federal Register 

Vol. 86, No. 140 

Monday, July 26, 2021 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of July 19, 2021 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 1285 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority 

and functions vested in the President by section 1285(a) through (e) of 

Public Law 116–92 on the use of military force and support of partner 

forces to the Congress. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, July 19, 2021 

[FR Doc. 2021–15956 

Filed 7–23–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 5001–06–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FRBIDEN.EPS</GPH>
Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C7771 DATE 3/25/2003
CASE Heidi Happel et al. Vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
DOCKET ENTRY:
(¢0) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao «of [Other docket entry] Defendant’s motion for order authorizing issuance of subpoenas for plaintiff's
mental health record, directing plaintiff to execute authorizations to disclose mental heaith records and
records related to psychological testing, and disclosure of raw date and related psychological testing data
from plaintiffs mental health care treaters to defendant’s consultant is granted. (DRAFT ORDER TO
FOLLOW) Plaintiff to comply with order by 4/15/03. Defendant’s motion to dismiss etc. with
memorandum in support by 3/25/03. Answer to motion to befiled by 4/22/03. Reply to answer by 5/2/03.
dqdjy a [For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. rwumber of noices
Notices mailed by judge's staff,
. MAR 2 6 2093
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
wv | Docketing to mail notices. xR
Mail AO 450 form. docketing dep fy initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

WAH

date mailed notice

Lactlhy 2 ww eu

courtroom

deputy’s

initials O-4-4354
Ubahellihnd rebated in

railing deputy iniias

central Clerk’s Office
#### Timothy SALISBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ITASCA COUNTY, Deputy Rob Johnson, and Deputy A.J. Morse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-3643.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.

Filed: Nov. 25, 2011.

Robert Joseph Polski, Jr., Polski & Pol-ski, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephanie A. Angolkar, Jason Michael Hiveley, Jon Kermit Iverson, Iverson *&*Reuvers, Bloomington, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Salisbury filed a civil lawsuit against Itasca County Deputies Rob Johnson and A.J. Morse, claiming they used excessive force when they arrested him in connection with a domestic violence call. The district court1 granted in part the officer’s motion in limine to exclude testimony from Salsibury’s expert, and thereby prohibited the expert from concluding the *408police used unreasonable or excessive force against Salisbury during the arrest. After a four day trial, the jury found in favor of the officers. Salisbury now appeals the district court’s order granting in part the motion in limine, claiming the court erred (1) procedurally, by accepting the officer’s motion after the court-set deadline for filing dispositive motions, and (2) substantively, by abusing its discretion when it granted the motion on the merits.

“We review the district court’s eviden-tiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and we may not reverse unless the district court erred and the error affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” *Green v. City of St. Louis, Mo.,*507 F.3d 662, 669 (8th Cir.2007) (citing *Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc.,*356 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir.2004)). “To warrant reversal, an error must affect a substantial right of the objecting party, and the burden of showing prejudice rests on that party.” *Vasquez v. Colores,*648 F.3d 648, 652 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting *Gill v. Maciejewski,*546 F.3d 557, 562 (8th Cir.2008)).

Salisbury has failed to meet his required burden. By failing to provide us with a trial transcript to review, he failed to show how the district court’s alleged error affected his substantial rights. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), “it is the duty of the appellant to order a transcript of the portions of the trial relevant to the issues raised on appeal.” *Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp.,*18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir.1994); *see also Brattrud v. Town of Exline,*628 F.2d 1098, 1099 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam). Without a trial transcript, it is impossible for us to provide meaningful review of the district court’s decision to exclude certain evidence or testimony. *See, e.g., Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.,*827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s evidentiary rulings because appellant failed to provide a trial transcript); *Carter v. Jacobsen,*748 F.2d 487, 488-89 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (same).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### Pauline M. HORVATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary, Department of *975the Navy,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-15929.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.**

Filed July 25, 2011.

Pauline M. Horvath, Oakland, CA, pro se.

Michael Thomas Pyle, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

*

 Ray Mabus had been substituted for his predecessor, Donald C. Winter, as Secretary of the Department of the Navy under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Pauline M. Horvath appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Learned v. City of Bellevue,*860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Horvath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her promotion denials were causally connected to her filing of an informal complaint of discrimination. *See Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist.,*323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003) (no causal connection due to a lack of evidence showing that the decisionmakers were aware of the plaintiffs complaints); *see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,*281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir.2002) (eighteen-month lapse between protected activity and an adverse employment action is too long to give rise to an inference of causation).

We do not consider Horvath’s request for class certification because she did not file a motion for class certification before the district court. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Horvath’s request to stay her appeal pending the district court’s resolution of her motion for reconsideration is denied as moot.

Horvath’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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
 Pest Management and Biocontrol Research: Maricopa, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Main Page - ALARC
                                    Plant Physiology and Genetics Unit
                                    Water Management and Conservation Unit
                                    Western Regional Biomass Research Center
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Maricopa, Arizona U.S. Arid Land Agricultural Research Center Pest Management and Biocontrol Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Colin Brent
- Ken Callicott
- Jeffrey Fabrick
- James Hagler
- Joe Hull
- Hillary Mehl
- Steve Naranjo
- Research Projects
- Publications
- Pest Bibliographies
- Resampling Software (RVSP)
- ARS News Articles

Steven E Naranjo
                     

                     Collaborator


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
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that except
for the failure to timely file the report, the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
April 5, 2005

| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
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.
# Official Journal L 46/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 46 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5819 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 46

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5819 February 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/220 of 3 February 2015 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Union | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/220 of 3 February 2015 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Union

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.
# C_2019295EN.01004501.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/45

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Colajanni v Parliament

(Case T-419/19)

(2019/C 295/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Alberto Colajanni (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Exhibit 99.1

Certification pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Hal M. Krisbergh, the Chief Executive officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "September 30, 2002 Form 10-Q"), which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o[d]) and
information contained in the September 30, 2002 Form 10-Q fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate
Communications, Inc.

|Dated: 11/14/02 |  |  | /s/HAL M. KRISBERGHHal M. Krisbergh
|--------------- |  |  | -----------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
(THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001001131
<NAME> ICG HOLDINGS,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          451082
<SECURITIES>                                      6832
<RECEIVABLES>                                    43344
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2509
<INVENTORY>                                       3206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                506327
<PP&E>                                          383435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   47298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  939351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60163
<BONDS>                                         739827
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     153318
<COMMON>                                        275355
<OTHER-SE>                                    (294943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    939351
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                169094
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   135253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  8685
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               85714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (185785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (180654)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (3453)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (184107)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>