alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006086EN.01002001.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

(Case C-98/06)

(2006/C 86/38)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court), Sweden of 8 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Freeport PLC, London, Great Britain and Olle Arnoldsson on the following questions:

| 1. | Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-stock company as a consequence of a commitment undertaken to be regarded as being based on contract for the application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation, even though the party which gave the commitment at the relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of the company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-stock company as a consequence of a commitment undertaken to be regarded as being based on contract for the application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation, even though the party which gave the commitment at the relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of the company?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition to the conditions expressly laid down therein, that the action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court was not brought solely in order to have an action against another defendant heard by a court other than that which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition to the conditions expressly laid down therein, that the action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court was not brought solely in order to have an action against another defendant heard by a court other than that which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the case?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should the likelihood of success of an action against the party domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken into account in the determination of whether there is such a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article 6(1)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should the likelihood of success of an action against the party domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken into account in the determination of whether there is such a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article 6(1)?

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul E. Ross, 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 fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
July 18, 2008

By:

/s/PAUL E. ROSSPaul E. Ross Senior Vice PresidentFinance and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 384 

Designating the first Tuesday in March as ‘‘National Public Higher Education 

Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the first Tuesday in March as ‘‘National Public 

Higher Education Day’’. 

Whereas the economic strength of the United States and its 

ability to create jobs and compete globally requires a 

skilled workforce educated for a 21st century economy; 

Whereas according to the Department of Education, over 

14,000,000 students attend public postsecondary degreegranting institutions across every State in the United 

States, comprising almost 3⁄4 of postsecondary students 

in the United States; 

Whereas the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found 

that publicly supported community colleges ‘‘enroll almost half of all U.S. undergraduate students and are essential for work force training and retraining’’; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 384 IS 

Whereas according to the Center for Measuring University 

Performance, 1⁄2 of the top 50 research universities in the 

United States are public institutions, from Virginia to 

Washington, Texas to Minnesota, Ohio to Colorado, and 

many more; 

Whereas according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

during the 2009–2010 academic year, public universities 

made up 2 of the top 5 most popular choices for students 

who used benefits from the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (38 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.); 

and 

Whereas the first Tuesday in the month of March is an appropriate day to designate as National Public Higher 

Education Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the first Tuesday in the month 

3 of March as ‘‘National Public Higher Education 

4 Day’’; 

5 (2) recognizes the importance of public higher 

6 education for growing a skilled domestic workforce, 

7 promoting research and innovation, and advancing 

8 the global competitiveness of the United States; and 

9 (3) calls upon the people of the United States 

10 to observe National Public Higher Education Day 

11 with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00163-CV

JOHN B. ERICKSON,

Appellant

v.

VIJAY KASIREDDY,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV686-21DC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John B. Erickson appealed the trial court’s order granting a special appearance. He 

now moves to dismiss the appeal, asserting the parties have reached a settlement 

agreement. Erickson’s motion is unopposed. 

Accordingly, “Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss” is granted, and this 

appeal is dismissed. Further, there being an agreement of the parties as to costs, all costs 

of this proceeding are taxed against the party incurring same.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Erickson v. Kasireddy Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Motion granted

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 19, 2024

[CV06]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JERRY LILLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND

D/B/A WESTAR INDUSTRIES,

 Appellant,

v.

CHRIS PHAM, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

FOR ALEX PHAM,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00135-CV

Appeal from

352nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 352-280346-15)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant, Jerry Lilly, Individually and d/b/a 

Westar Industries, has failed to file his brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that his brief was past due and no motion for 

extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and showed 

grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant has not filed his 

brief or an extension motion, and he has not filed any response to the inquiry. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
- 2 -

October 27, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as anofficer of Force Protection, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge,the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m or 78o(d)) and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This writtenstatement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|                    |                                       |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 11, 2009 | /s/ MICHAEL  MOODY                         |
|                    | **Michael  Moody**                         |
|                    | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                    |                                       |
| Date: May 11, 2009 | /s/ CHARLES  MATHIS                        |
|                    | **Charles  Mathis**                        |
|                    | **Chief  Financial Officer**               |

 

This exhibit shall not bedeemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, nor shall itbe deemed incorporated by reference in any filings under the Securities Act of1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after thedate hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in anyfilings.

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6627

ELIJAH GRANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE WELDON; RUSHING, Physician; LYNNE

KELLER; MICHAEL RAGAN; JAMES GOWAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-346-4-17BE)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, EARLY &

NESS, Bamberg, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, James

Miller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for Appellant's

failure to properly serve his informal brief is hereby denied.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court.* Grant v. Weldon, No. CA96-346-4-17BE (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
II

Calendar No. 127

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1043

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at the corner

of Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, as

the ‘‘Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21, 1997

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. BRYAN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

JULY 24, 1997

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark

Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ‘‘Lloyd D. George

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1043 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LLOYD D. GEORGE UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse under construction at

4 the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark Avenue in

5 Las Vegas, Nevada, shall be known and designated as the

6 ‘‘Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Lloyd D. George United States

12 Courthouse’’.

Calendar No. 127

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1043

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse under

house’’.the ‘‘Lloyd D. George United States Courtvard and Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, asconstruction at the corner of Las Vegas BouleJULY 24, 1997

Reported without amendment
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
  (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.
 /s/ Peter M. ZottoPeter M. ZottoChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)August 11, 2008 /s/ Christopher M. MirabileChristopher M. MirabileChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)August 11, 2008
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
 Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory: Temple, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Online Tools
                        NLET
                                    SWIFT
                                    SNAP
                                    SWH
                                    ACRE
                                    AgOPTSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Temple, Texas Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory People & Locations







Martin I Lopez
                        Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Automotive Worker
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of
the Company for the periods presented
therein.
 Date: May 10, 2007/s/ ANDREW HAMER

Andrew Hamer
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of IDX Systems Corporation
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, James H. Crook, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
John A. Kane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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

                                 /s/ James H. Crook, Jr.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Dated:  March 31, 2003           James H. Crook, Jr.
                                 Chief Executive Officer










                                 /s/ John A. Kane
                                 ---------------------------------------
Dated:  March 31, 2003           John A. Kane
                                 Sr. Vice President, Finance and Administration,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to IDX Systems
Corporation and will be retained by IDX Systems Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Cite as White Assoc. Architects, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-2734.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

WHITE ASSOC. ARCHITECTS, INC. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-09868-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On August 12, 2010, plaintiff, William Philip White, filed a complaint 

against defendant, Department of Transportation. A review of the form complaint 

revealed the damage to the vehicle in question was paid by White Assoc. Architects, 

Inc. This entity also paid the filing fee. The plaintiff in this case is White Assoc. 

Architects, Inc. On January 19, 2011, plaintiff entity was ordered to obtain counsel to 

proceed with this claim, to file a notice of appearance, and an amended complaint with 

this court or face dismissal of this case. Plaintiff entity has not complied with the court 

order. Accordingly, plaintiff entity’s case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 

Civ.R. 41. The court shall absorb the court costs of this claim. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 
Case No. 2010-09868-AD - 2 - ENTRY

White Assoc. Architects, Inc. 

William Philip White 

345 Longfellow Avenue 

Worthington, Ohio 43085 

 

DRB/laa 

Filed 3/10/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 5/27/11
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1011 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1011

    For the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert Miftakhov.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 1997

   Mr. Wyden introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    For the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert Miftakhov.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Marina Khalina 
and her son, Albert Miftakhov, shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Marina Khalina and her 
son, Albert Miftakhov, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State 
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number 
during the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas 
available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 
203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
#### McNeil *v.*Harris.

April 15, 1915.

Ejectment. Before Judge Worrill. Bandolph superior court. January 10, 1914.

*George H. Perry,*for plaintiff in error.

*II. A. Wilkinson*and *J. W. Harris,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

The charge was adjusted to the issues, and the evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*