alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017424EN.01003901.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/39

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — TW and Others v SRB

(Case T-555/17)

(2017/C 424/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: TW, TY, UA and UB (represented by: L. Chen Chen, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Take note of the lodging of the present action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to write down Banco Popular Español S.A.’s share capital to EUR 0 and to sell it subsequently to Banco de Santander S.A. for EUR 1, and after having examined all the documents officially available and assessed the grounds set out therein, declare that the decision taken by the Board in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2017 is invalid or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take note of the lodging of the present action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to write down Banco Popular Español S.A.’s share capital to EUR 0 and to sell it subsequently to Banco de Santander S.A. for EUR 1, and after having examined all the documents officially available and assessed the grounds set out therein, declare that the decision taken by the Board in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2017 is invalid or annulled.

Official Journal of the European Union

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---
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 Coyote Hills Golf, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mitch Powers, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and I, Stephanie Erickson, acting in the capacity as the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Mitch S.
Powers


Mitch
Powers


Chief
Executive Officer


November
6, 2008








/s/ Stephanie Lynn
Erickson


Stephanie
Lynn Erickson


Chief
Financial Officer


November
6, 2008
#### Jermaine B. WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6296.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Jermaine B. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine B. Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350
 (SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of, Corporate Outfitters, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Taigen, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.
 
 Dated:  November
14, 2008
 
 By:  /s/ David
Taigen
 David Taigen, President, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
# C_2018427EN.01007001.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/70

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB

(Case T-618/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Action for annulment - Association set up after the adoption of the contested measure - Lack of direct concern - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2018/C 427/93)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Arredondo Díaz, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank (represented by: R. Ugena Torrejon and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented initially by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, L. Baudenbacher and S. Ianc, and subsequently by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Banco Santander, SA, Banco Popular Español, SA, the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission and Chavela Inmuebles, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Banco Santander, SA, Banco Popular Español, SA, the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission and Chavela Inmuebles, SL.

| 3. | Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular shall pay the costs with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular shall pay the costs with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Banco Santander, Banco Popular Español, the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission and Chavela Inmuebles shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Banco Santander, Banco Popular Español, the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission and Chavela Inmuebles shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2008 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2008

  To prohibit the installation or display of art in any United States 
                    embassy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2019

 Mr. Burchett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the installation or display of art in any United States 
                    embassy, and for other purposes.

    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 ``No Art in Embassies Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--No funds are authorized to be appropriated, and 
the Secretary of State may not obligate or expend any funds, for the 
purchase, installation, insurance, or transport of any art for the 
purposes of installation or display in any embassy, consulate, or other 
foreign mission of the United States.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``art'' includes 
paintings, sculptures, photographs, industrial design, and craft art.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 8 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 8 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 8 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
Cynthia Martinez Montalvo 152nd Civil District Court 201 Caroline, Suite 250 P.O. Box 4651 Houston, Texas 77210 

# DNRBH•Z
Denton Nava1To Rocha Bernal Hyde & 

### Zech, PC. attorneys & counselors at law • rampagelaw.com 

### San Antonio 

## IAustin 

## IRio GrandeValley 2500W. William Cannon, Suite 609 

### IAustin.Texas 78745-5320 

### v512-279-6431 

### IF512-279-6438 July 24, 2015
Via Electronic Notification and email

Re: Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc. (Cause No. 2014-32179 in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas) Dear Ms. Martinez-Montalvo: Pursuantto Rule 35 oftheTexas Rules ofAppellate Procedure, ouroffice is requesting that you prepare, certify and file with the First Court of Appeals the Reporter's Record with the transcript of hearing held on July 1, 2015 before the Hon. Judge Schafferon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and any and all exhibits attached thereto. Please contact our office as to the cost for the aforementioned record and our office will submit paymentto you immediately. Should you have anyquestions orconcerns, please contact our office at (512) 279-6431.

GEH/SMT/ha cc: ChristopherA. Prine Clerk ofthe Court First Court ofAppeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002-2066 Very truly yours, Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal Hyde & Zech, P.C. attorneys & counselors at law • rampagelaw.com

GEORGE E. HYDE SCOTT M. TSCHIRHART Electronic Notification

Serving all ofTexas from our San Antonio,Austin and Rio GrandeValley offices ACCEPTED 01-15-00617-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/24/2015 2:15:48 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### Cynthia Martinez Montalvo July24, 2015 

### 21 Page
James 

### E. "Trey" Trainor, Ill BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSON, L.L.P. 401 W. 15th Street, Suite 845 Austin, TX 78701 Joseph M. Nixon N. TerryAdams BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSON, L.L.P. 1300 Post Oak Blvd., 25th Floor Houston, TX 77056-3000 Electronic Notification

Electronic Notification
# C_2019295EN.01002102.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — a&o hostel and hotel Berlin v Commission

(Case T-578/17) (1)

(State aid - Operating aid - Youth hostel in Berlin - Rent-free use of a publicly owned property - Decision declaring the potential aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Serious difficulties)

(2019/C 295/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: a&o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH, successor in title to A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Heise and M. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, A Bouchagiar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, and subsequently by R. Kanitz, acting as Agent, and K. Dingemann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on State aid SA.43145 (2016/FC) — Germany, concerning the allegedly unlawful non-fiscal State aid granted to Jugendherberge Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on State aid SA.43145 (2016/FC) — Germany, concerning the allegedly unlawful non-fiscal State aid granted to Jugendherberge Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on State aid SA.43145 (2016/FC) — Germany, concerning the allegedly unlawful non-fiscal State aid granted to Jugendherberge Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by a&o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by a&o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

---
November 6, 2018

Via the CFTC Web Submission Portal

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request: Petition Pursuant to Regulation 145.9(d)

To Whom It May Concern:

On this date, trueEX LLC (“trueEX”) submitted a notice, 2018-08S, to the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission (the "Commission") via the Commission Portal to notify it of 

the fees trueEX intends to charge for transactions in trueDigital Products, and a 

Designated Market Maker Program for trueDigital Products. Exhibits A-2 and B-2 are the 

Confidential Materials for which trueEX is requesting confidential treatment. 

By this petition, trueEX requests confidential treatment pursuant to Section 145.9(d) of 

the Commission’s regulations of the Confidential Material. A copy of this Confidential 

Material is attached. 

Pursuant to Sections 8(a) of the Act, and Commission Regulation § 145.9(d), trueEX 

requests confidential treatment of the Confidential Material on the grounds that disclosure 

of such material would reveal trade secrets of trueEX and/or reveal confidential 

commercial information of trueEX. The Confidential Material is proprietary to trueEX and 

contain highly sensitive and confidential business and technology information; in addition 

to violating trueEX’s proprietary rights, the disclosure of the Confidential Materials would 

grant competitors an unfair competitive advantage and/or compromise the competitive 

advantages possessed by trueEX. Accordingly, trueEX is requesting the Commission to 

take appropriate steps to keep Confidential Material submitted to them confidential and 

to restrict the re-distribution of the Confidential Material.

Pursuant to Commission Regulation § 145.9(d)(5), trueEX hereby requests that the 

Confidential Material be afforded confidential treatment in perpetuity.

trueEX requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after receiving 

any FOIA request, any court order, subpoena, or summons seeking to access the 

Confidential Material in whole or in part. trueEX further requests notification (through the 

undersigned) in the event that the Commission intends to disclose the Confidential 

Material in whole or in part to Congress or to any other governmental agency or unit 

pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. trueEX does not waive its notification rights under 
Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons with respect to the 

Confidential Material in whole or in part. 

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact 

me by telephone at (312) 320-8934 or by email at fran@trueex.com. 

Sincerely,

Fran Kenck 

Chief Compliance Officer

Attachment:

CFTC 2018-08S Exchange Fees and DMM Submission.docx
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: RENE ORDONEZ,

DEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR,

Relator. '

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 13

- 00294

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Linda Chew, Judge of the 327th District Court of El Paso, Texas, and

concludes that Relator = s petition fo r writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rodriguez, J., not participating)
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Photovoltaic Solar Cells, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harvey Judkowitz, Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 the operation of the Company.





Dated: January 13, 2012
/s/ Harvey JudkowitzHarvey Judkowitz, Principal Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request .





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM JAMAL DEMPS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2316

[October 17, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-574CF10A.

William Jamal Demps, Live Oak, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.