alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 30, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00218-CV
KNO FRANCHISING, LTD., Appellant V. SUDHIR JOSHI, AN INDIVIDUAL, AN D JOSHI HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-04667-2014



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Ju stices Lang-Miers and Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal. Appellant has informed
the Court that it no longer wishes to pursue th e appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s
motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

150218F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

KNO FRANCHISING, LTD., Appellant

No. 05-15-00218-CV V.

SUDHIR JOSHI, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND JOSHI HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 416-04667-2014. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart, participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellees SUDHIR JO SHI, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND JOSHI HOLDINGS, LLC recover their costs of this a ppeal from appellant KNO FRANCHISING, LTD.

Judgment entered April 30, 2015.
# C_2021242EN.01002701.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Sharif v Council

(Case T-540/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity)

(2021/C 242/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle, L. Cloquet and J. Kobeissi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, J. Norris and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ammar Sharif to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ammar Sharif to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
# Official Journal C 289A/29 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 289A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5729 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 289A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5729 August 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 289A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/252/13 — Heads of Unit (AD9) with Croatian citizenship (HR) | 1 |
| 2014/C 289A/02 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/253/13 — Heads of Unit (AD 12) with Croatian citizenship (HR) | 2 |
| 2014/C 289A/03 | Addendum to the Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 289A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/252/13 — Heads of Unit (AD9) with Croatian citizenship (HR)

1

2014/C 289A/02

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/253/13 — Heads of Unit (AD 12) with Croatian citizenship (HR)

2

2014/C 289A/03

Addendum to the Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7)

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 289A/04 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 4 |

2014/C 289A/04

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:391
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:392
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:393
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:394
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:395
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:396
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:397
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:398
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:399
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:400
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:401
Case: 1:03-cr-00928 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/04 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:402
01-6172.051 January 26, 2005

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALMA CABRERA, individually and as )

Special Administrator of the Estate )

of VANESSA ANGELICA PALOMINO, a minor, )

deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) No. 01 C 6172 

)

ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP., )

ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The law firm of Manchik & Romaker, the attorneys for plaintiff

in this case, filed a petition on January 10, 2005 requesting

approval of a proposed final distribution of the proceeds in this

case. Paragraph seven of the petition sought approval of

$16,141.88 in costs, which included the sum of $4,318.42 for

“investigations.” At a hearing on the petition, the court

requested an explanation of this item and expressed doubt as to its

propriety. Counsel offered to explain the item, and, for that

purpose, filed a “Supplemental Petition to Approve Final

Distribution” on January 13, 2005. The Supplemental Petition

explains that the $4,318.42 item was in fact the cost of “legal

research through the ‘Westlaw’ computer assisted database online.”
- 2 -

The individual Westlaw charges, totaling $4,318.42, are listed in

paragraph one of the Supplemental Petition. 

In paragraph three of the Supplemental Petition, counsel cite

three Seventh Circuit cases holding that the costs of computerassisted legal research are properly awarded in addition to

attorney’s fees. Each of these cases involved a lodestar fee

award, computed according to the time spent by the attorneys. The

instant case, of course, involves a fee based not on time, but on

a percentage of the amount recovered. We think it unlikely that in

researching the matter, as they obviously did, Manchik & Romaker

would not have found the later Seventh Circuit case of Montgomery

v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399, 409-10 (7th Cir. 2000), which

held that in a percentage fee case the cost of computer-assisted

legal research is not separately recoverable as an expense. To say

that we are disappointed in counsels’ failure to cite this case is

an understatement. 

We were surprised to learn from the Supplemental Petition that

the “investigations” for which counsel sought reimbursement were in

fact computer-assisted legal research. It is common for fee

petitions to list computer-assisted legal research, but we have

never before seen it described as anything but that. Calling it

“investigations” could easily be regarded as an attempt to deceive,

especially in the circumstances we have described. 
- 3 -

Conclusion

The sum of $4,318.42 sought by the firm of Manchik & Romaker

for “investigations” or “computer assisted legal research,” is

disallowed. The Petition to Approve Final Distribution is

otherwise approved, less the $4,318.42. 

DATED: January 26, 2005

ENTER: _________________________________________________

John F. Grady, United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2598

KING GRANT-DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHANE FORTUNE; SCOTT BLIEMEISTER; JEROME BURGESS; GREG LEY, 

of Wal-Mart, Charleston, South Carolina District; WAL-MART,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:15-cv-04211-PMD)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

King Grant-Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

King Grant-Davis appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. GrantDavis v. Fortune, No. 2:15-cv-04211-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2015). 

We decline to consider the arguments Grant-Davis raises for the 

first time on appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 

(4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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
 Poisonous Plant Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    IACUC SummariesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Logan, Utah Poisonous Plant Research Docs





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- Awards & Recognition

Awards & Recognitionheadline bar **Federal Laboratory Consortium Awards** 2011 - **Outstanding Laboratory Award** - Poisonous Plant Research LaboratoryThe Outstanding Laboratory Award acknowledges a laboratory that provides exceptional support and encouragement to the transfer of federal technologies into the private sector with proven tangible benefits.


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
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Christopher J.
Policinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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.



                                       By  /s/ Chris Policinski
                                       ------------------------
                                       Christopher J. Policinski
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-31215

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN E. MILTON, III, also known as Boo Milton,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:96-CR-17-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John E. Milton, III, federal prisoner # 24395-034, was convicted of 

conspiring to possess crack and powder cocaine with intent to distribute and 

was sentenced to serve 600 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised 

release. Now, he moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s denial of his “motion to 

rescind” the judgment denying his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-31215 Document: 00512703916 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
No. 13-31215

The “motion to rescind” was meaningless, unauthorized, and without any 

jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 

1994). Consequently, this appeal does not involve “legal points arguable on 

their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous, and Milton’s IFP motion is DENIED. See Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-31215 Document: 00512703916 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/16/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:908
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 24, 2013

No. 04

- 12

- 00783

- CV

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS , Local 624

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 16015 Honorable Laura Salinas, J udge Presiding

No. 04

- 13

- 00109

- CV

IN RE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

O RAL A RGUMENT A DVISORY

The panel assigned to hear oral argument in these consolidated proceedings is familiar with the facts and reque sts that the parties be prepared to address the applicability, if any, of this court’s decision in City of Laredo v. Mojica , 399 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2012, pet. denied).

PER CURIAM It is so ORDERED on July 24, 2013

.

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

1 The proceeding in Cause No. 04

- 13

- 00109

- CV arises out of Cause No. 2012

- CI

- 16015 , styled Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 624 v. City of San Antonio , pending in t he 45 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe presiding. However, the orders complained of were signed by the Honorable Laura Salinas, presiding judge of the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

.
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, Eli
Harari, Chief Executive Officer of SanDisk Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the annual report on Form 10-K of SanDisk Corporation for the
year ended January 3, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SanDisk
Corporation.





By:
      /s/ Eli
      HarariEli
      HarariChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





February 25,
2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SanDisk Corporation and will be retained by SanDisk Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

                                                     By  /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Daniel Knutson
                                                     Senior Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer

                                       35
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1068 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1068

    To amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act to exempt 
     physician office laboratories from the clinical laboratories 
                     requirements of that section.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 1997

   Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. 
   Nickles) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act to exempt 
     physician office laboratories from the clinical laboratories 
                     requirements of that section.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act 
Amendments of 1997''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF PHYSICIAN OFFICE LABORATORIES.

    Section 353(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a(d)) 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
        paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Exemption of physician office laboratories.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), a clinical laboratory in a 
                physician's office (including an office of a group of 
                physicians) which is directed by a physician and in 
                which examinations and procedures are either performed 
                by a physician or by individuals supervised by a 
                physician solely as an adjunct to other services 
                provided by the physician's office is exempt from this 
                section.
                    ``(B) Exception.--A clinical laboratory described 
                in subparagraph (A) is not exempt from this section 
                when it performs a pap smear (Papanicolaous Smear) 
                analysis.
                    ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph 
                (A), the term `physician' has the same meaning as is 
                prescribed for such term by section 1861(r) of the 
                Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)).'';
            (3) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3) (as so 
        redesignated) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' each place that 
        such term appears and inserting ``paragraph (4)''; and
            (4) in paragraphs (4) and (5) (as so redesignated), by 
        striking ``paragraph (2)'' each place that such appears and 
        inserting ``paragraph (3)''.
                                 <all>
```