alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Theodore J. STOLASZ and William J. Anderson, Wayne J. Mathew, Edward A. Wright, Randy C. Baur, Ronald J. Ulrey, William R. Colvin, Douglas E. Davis, R.H. Kingery, David W. Munger, Jack W. McKeever, William K. Swinnerton, John Dipasquala, Jr., John T. Edwards, James L. Tock, Charles L. Woodbury, Roger A. Moore, and Dennis L. Marietta, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2006-7059, 2006-7227, 2006-7228, 2006-7230 to 2006-7232, 2006-7234 to 2006-7236, 2006-7244, 2006-7255 to 2006-7261.*

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 10, 2006.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*

 The captions of these appeals are condensed only for the purposes of this order. The individual caption of each of these appeals has not been revised.

ON MOTION

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in *Stolasz v. Nicholson,*04-0217, 04-0344, 20 Vet.App. 143, *Mathew v. Nicholson,*05-1541, 2006 WL 954017, *Wright v. Nicholson,*05-1362, 2006 WL 829624, *Baur v. Nicholson,*05-1221, 2006 WL 2498175, *Ulrey v. Nicholson,*05-0592, 2006 WL 829611, *Colvin v. Nicholson,*05-0742, 2006 WL 952643, *Davis v. Nicholson,*04-2374, 2006 WL 1726766, *Kingery v. Nicholson,*04-2325, 2006 WL 1522458, *Munger v. Nicholson,*04-2300, 2006 WL 954884, *McKeever v. Nicholson,*05-1100, *Swinnerton v. Nicholson,*04-0949, — Vet.App. -, *Dipasquala v. Nicholson,*04-1991, 2006 WL 1167678, *Edwards v. Nicholson,*04-1988, 2006 WL 954172, *Tock v. Nicholson,*04-2259, — Vet.App. -, *Woodbury v. Nicholson,*05-0069, 2006 WL 1167657, *Moore v. Nicholson,*05-0210, 2006 WL 1727592, and *Marietta v. Nicholson,*05-0212, 2006 WL 1727351, and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*451 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2006).

In all of the above-captioned cases, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relied on its decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*19 Vet.App. 63 (2005), in concluding that the claimants were entitled to separate ratings for tinnitus in each ear. We reversed that decision, holding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should have deferred to the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation at issue, an interpretation that only one rating may be *459allowed for tinnitus in both ears. *Smith,*451 F.3d 1344. Under these circumstances, the requested relief is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions to vacate and remand are granted.

(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2963

_____________________________ S HERMAN T AYLOR M ORRIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. July 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee; Sherman Taylor Morris, pro se
, for Appellant.

Ashle y Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2019187EN.01002901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-275/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 131 and Article 146(1)(a) - Exemption for supplies of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the European Union - Condition of exemption laid down by national law - Placing of goods under a particular customs procedure - Proof of placing of goods under the export procedure)

(2019/C 187/33)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milan Vinš

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision from making the exemption from value added tax for goods intended to be exported outside the European Union conditional on the goods being placed under the export customs procedure, in a situation in which it is established that the substantive conditions of exemption, in particular the condition that the goods concerned actually leave the territory of the European Union, are satisfied

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
# C_2019054EN.01001902.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/19

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 23 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg — Sweden) — AA v Migrationsverket

(Case C-526/18) (1)

(2019/C 54/32)

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2019 a0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2019

157971(59)

CROWN ENTERPRISES, INC., DIBDETROIT

LLC, RIVERVIEW-TRENTON RAILROAD

COMPANY, CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC,

and DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 157971

COA: 340039

Court of Claims: 16-000317-MZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN, GOVERNOR,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and

MICHIGAN STRATEGIC FUND,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 21, 

2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

CLEMENT, J., did not participate due to her prior involvement as chief legal 

counsel for the Governor.
433 West Van Buren Street › Suite 700S › Chicago, IL 60607 › cboe.com

November 2, 2023

CFTC FOIA Compliance Office

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request:

Petition Pursuant to Regulation 145.9(d)

All:

Pursuant to § 145.9(d) of the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and pursuant 

to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Cboe Digital Exchange, LLC (“CDE”) hereby petitions

the Commission for confidential treatment of: Exhibit A to the Self-Certification for a new license 

incentive program for CDE Trading Privilege Holders (“TPHs”) that are futures commission 

merchants (“FCMs”) (CDE-2023-08E); and Exhibit A to the Self-Certification for a new incentive 

program for CDE TPHs that are default auction liquidity providers (CDE-2023-09E), each submitted 

to the CFTC via the CFTC Portal on November 2, 2023 (“Covered Information”).

The Covered Information should be afforded confidential treatment based on, among other 

things, § 145.9(d)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s regulations, which implements FOIA Exemption 4 of 

the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)), because disclosure would reveal CDE trade 

secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. CDE hereby requests that the Covered 

Information be afforded confidential treatment in perpetuity.

CDE requests that the Commission notify CDE upon the receipt of any request by any party 

for any access under FOIA to the Covered Information or any court order, subpoena, or summons for 

disclosure of the Covered Information for the entire duration that the Commission retains the Covered

Information. CDE further requests notification in the event that the Commission intends to disclose

the Covered Information in whole or in part to Congress or to any other governmental agency or unit 

pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. CDE does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of 

the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for the Covered Information.

The address at which CDE can be reached is as follows:

433 West Van Buren Street, Suite 700S

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Attention: General Counsel

Please contact me at kkirkpatrick@cboe.com or (312) 786-7431 if you have any questions
regarding this request.

Cboe Digital Exchange, LLC

/s/ Katherine Kirkpatrick

By: Katherine Kirkpatrick, Chief Legal Officer
# C_2017095EN.01001401.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/14

---

Action brought on 13 January 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-21/17)

(2017/C 095/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RL (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul the decision adopted on 11 May 2016 by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the contents of which were communicated to the applicant by letter of 20 May 2016, not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 10 as of 1 July 2015 and, so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 6 October 2016 by the Complaints Committee rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant dated 22 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted on 11 May 2016 by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the contents of which were communicated to the applicant by letter of 20 May 2016, not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 10 as of 1 July 2015 and, so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 6 October 2016 by the Complaints Committee rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant dated 22 July 2016;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal promotion system in place within the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal promotion system in place within the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of a single European civil service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of a single European civil service.

---
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

Friday, March 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00761

- CR

David CHARLES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR5564 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 29, 2015, this Court granted Appellant’s motion for a 30

- day extension of time to file his brief, extending the deadline to March 2, 2015. Appellant filed a second motion requesting a 30

- day extension of time , which this Court granted in part, extending appellant’s deadline to March 16, 2015. Appellant now files his third motion for extension of time, requesting extension to Friday, April 4, 2015 (presumed to be Friday, April 3, 2015)

.

It is ORDERED the motio n is GRANTED

. Appellant must file the brief on or before Friday, April 3, 2015

. This extension extends Appellant’s deadline to 60 days after the original brief was due. For this reason, NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED

.

_________________________________ Ja son Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keit h E. Hottle Clerk of Court
================================================================================

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 Bonfire Productions, Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for  the  period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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.


Date:  February 5, 2008


/s/ Nadezda Maximova
----------------------------------
Nadezda Maximova
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary
Treasurer, principal accounting
officer and Director
#### Stephen Dennet & *ux. versus*Neal Dow.

Where a will approved by the Judge of Probate, was reversed upon appeal in this Court, the appellant is not entitled to costs by virtue of st. 1821, c. 51, § 64.'

Costs were refused the appellee as a matter of judicial discretion, under the circumstances of the caso.

This was an appeal from the decree of the Judge of Probate approving the will of Stephen Neal. The decree was reversed in this Court, and both parties moved for costs.

*Fessenden Sf Deblois fy W. P. Fessenden,*for the appellant.

*Preble,*for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Costs are claimed in this case by *both*parties. The appellants claim cost by virtue of St. 1821, c. 51, § 64, by which in case of a failure to prosecute the appeal taken from the Judge of Probate, the Supreme Court are authorized to assess reasonable costs against the party so failing — and they infer that if he succeeds, he is entitled as a matter of right to have costs taxed in his favor. But we think this was not the intention of the legislature. The claim for costs is not to be extended by construction. In the one case, the statute makes positive provisions. In relation to the other, it is silent. The appellants as a matter of right are not entitled to costs.

Costs not being allowable to the appellant as a matter of right, still less are they allowable by virtue of sec. 67, of the same statute. The defendants were trustees under the will. *111The appellant was by law bound to file the will, whether ho accepted the trust or not, — it was approved by the Judge of Probate — and an appeal entered. It. was the duty of the appellant to attend to the prosecution of defence in that case. He was bound to resist the appeal. lie was then acting in the discharge of his official duty. The approval of the Judge of Probate was a sufficient justification for his endeavors to sustain the will. In our opinion he ought not to be held to pay costs.

Perhaps upon a fair construction of the statute, costs might be allowed to the appellee. But the jury have found the will to be the will of a person of non sane memory. They have sustained the appellant in his appeal. In the exercise of the discretion allowed us, we think the appellee is not to be allowed costs.

*No costs allowed to either parly.*
# C_2017382EN.01004801.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/48

---

Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-600/17)

(2017/C 382/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain), Grupo Nosa Terra 2000, SLU (Vigo), Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) and Industrias Lácteas Asturianas, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular.

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

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Services (ISAC-13) will hold a meeting on May 22, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The meeting will be opened to the public from 9 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and closed to the public from 9:45 a.m. to 12 noon.

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2001, unless otherwise notified.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC, Conference Room 6057.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Holderman (202) 482-0345, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (principal contact), or myself on (202) 395-6120.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

During the meeting the following topics will be addressed:
    - Requirements for Environmental Review of the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Negotiations.
    - Preparations for the WTO Ministerial Meetings in Qatar, November 2001.
    - Proposed Changes in the Bureau of Economic Analysis Survey on International Services Transactions.
    - Capacity Building to Improve Services Trade Statistics.

Heather K. Wingate,

Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01-12143  Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.2














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Neil Bernstein, Chief Financial 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.





Date: August 22, 2008
                By:
                /s/ 
      Neil BernsteinNeil
      BernsteinChief Financial
      Officer