alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
151 So. 920

#### Louis, alias Lewis, CUNNINGHAM v. STATE.

1 Div. 779.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 14, 1933.

A. J. Kearley and J. L. Sills, both of Mobile, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS, Justice.

The appellant was duly convicted of the offense of murder in the first degree, and has appealed from the judgment of conviction on the record without a bill of exceptions.

The record has been carefully examined, and it is in all things regular and free from error. Therefore a judgment will be entered here affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the circuit court,

The judgment of conviction having been suspended pending his appeal, and the date heretofore fixed by the circuit court of Mobile county for the execution of the death sentence having passed, it is ordered that Friday, the 9th day of February, 1934, be and is hereby fixed and set by this court as the date upon which such sentence passed and pronounced upon appellant will be executed. It is so ordered by this court.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
# C_2018328EN.01002402.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania

(Case C-241/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Defendant: Regione Campania

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Provincial Tax Court, Naples, Italy), by decision of 5 March 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# AGENCY:

Departmental Offices, Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the date, time, and location for the quarterly meeting of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations (COAC), and the provisional agenda for consideration by the Committee. 

# DATES:

The next meeting of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service will be held on Friday, June 15, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at 740 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC. The duration of the meeting will be approximately four hours. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordana S. Earp, Deputy Director, Tariff and Trade Affairs (Enforcement), Office of the Under Secretary (Enforcement), Telephone: (202) 622-0230. 

At this meeting, the Advisory Committee is expected to pursue the following agenda. The agenda may be modified prior to the meeting. 

## Agenda 

(1) Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) 

(2) Report of the OR & R (Office of Rules & Regulation) Sub Committee 

(3) Report of the CAT (Compliance Assessment Team) Sub Committee 

(4) Report of the Import Data & Customs entry Sub Committee 

(5) Update on Other Customs Matters 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public; however, participation in the Committee's deliberations is limited to Committee members, Customs and Treasury Department staff, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations. A person other than an Advisory Committee member who wishes to attend the meeting should contact Theresa Manning at (202) 622-0220 or Helen Belt at (202) 622-0230 for pre-clearance. 

Dated: May 21, 2001. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade (Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 01-13233 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
# C_2020027EN.01000801.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat

(Case C-706/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 5(4) - Decision concerning the application for family reunification - Consequences of failure to comply with the time limit for taking a decision - Automatic issue of a residence permit)

(2020/C 27/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on family reunification must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the absence of a decision being adopted within six months of the date on which the application for family reunification was lodged, the competent national authorities must automatically issue a residence permit to the applicant, without necessarily having to establish in advance that the latter actually meets the requirements for residence in the host Member State in accordance with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---
# C_2017402EN.01005601.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/56

---

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 330 of 2 October 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 330 of 2 October 2017

(2017/C 402/74)

The Notice in Case T-499/17 Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB should read as follows:

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Global Sistematic Investment Sicav v Commission and SRB

(Case T-499/17)

(2017/C 330/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Sistematic Investment Sicav, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

| — | Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

| — | By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y 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 and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.

---
# C_2019288EN.01003803.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Sens — France) — X

(Case C-562/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/48)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the expenditure 

of certain grant funds to purchase firearms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2019 

Mrs. DEMINGS (for herself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, and Mr. PAYNE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit 

the expenditure of certain grant funds to purchase firearms, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Communities 

5 and Safe Schools Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2383 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN 

2 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO 

3 PURCHASE FIREARMS. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 2008 of the Homeland Se5 curity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(6) FIREARMS.—A grant awarded under sec8 tion 2003 or 2004 may not be used to purchase fire9 arms or firearms accessories, such as ammunition, 

10 including for use by teachers.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Richelis S., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Richard S., Appellant.

Submitted February 1, 2010;

decided February 23, 2010

*768On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]). Motion for a stay dismissed as academic. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
151 So. 888

#### Will MORRIS et al. v. STATE.

6 Div. 473.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.

J. Foy Guin, of Russellville, for petitioners.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State. ■

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners’ argument for the issuance of the writ of certiorari in the instant case runs counter to the rule that this court will not review the Court of Appeals on its finding of facts, Houston v. State (Ala. Sup.) 148 So 863; 1 Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Himrod, 226 Ala. 342, 147 So. 163; Postal Tel.-Cable *85Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91, nor on questions not treated or considered m the opinion of that court, Ballard v. State, 219 Ala. 222, 121 So. 502; Whisenant v. State, 223 Ala. 550, 137 So. 457.

In accordance with this long-established rule, the writ must be here denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. .1., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

1

227 Ala. 172.
# C_2017424EN.01004501.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/45

---

Action brought on 27 September 2017 — eSlovensko v Commission

(Case T-664/17)

(2017/C 424/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: F. Branislav, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision Ref. ARES(2017)3107844-21/06/2017 of the European Commission excluding the applicant from participating in all procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation No 966/2012 and from the award of funds governed by Regulation 2015/323; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision Ref. ARES(2017)3107844-21/06/2017 of the European Commission excluding the applicant from participating in all procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation No 966/2012 and from the award of funds governed by Regulation 2015/323;

o

| — | order the defendant to conduct a new audit, reviewing its findings as to admissible costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to conduct a new audit, reviewing its findings as to admissible costs;

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

—

order the defendant to pay 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 misuse of powers, particularly improper legal evaluation of facts and findings.






  — | The applicant argues that there was no reasonable basis for the Commission’s decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, particularly improper legal evaluation of facts and findings.

—

The applicant argues that there was no reasonable basis for the Commission’s decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging inadequate justification of the contested decision.






  — | The Commission evidently failed to properly and impartially review all circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inadequate justification of the contested decision.

—

The Commission evidently failed to properly and impartially review all circumstances of the case.

---
[926 NE2d 253, 899 NYS2d 746]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric D. Carr, Appellant.

Argued February 17, 2010;

decided April 1, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc.,*Buffalo *(Nicholas T. Texido, David C. Schopp*and *Barbara J. Davies*of counsel), for appellant.

*809
      *Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney,*Buffalo *(Donna A. Milling*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A party seeking a missing witness instruction has the burden of making the request “as soon as practicable” *(People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986]). Whether such a request is timely is a question to be decided by the trial court in its discretion, taking into account both when the requesting party knew or should have known that a basis for a missing witness charge existed, and any prejudice that may have been suffered by the other party as a result of the delay.

Here, defendant knew at the outset of the trial that the People did not intend to call three of the victim’s relatives who were present at the time of the alleged crime. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, made more than a week after the People provided their witness list, and after the People had rested their case-in-chief, came too late.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
# C_2005055EN.01000501.xml

| 4.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/5

---

Ex-post
  publicity of Eurostat grants in 2004

Ex-post

(2005/C 55/05)

In accordance with Article 110(2) of the Financial Regulation and Article 169 of its implementing rules, the public is hereby informed of the actions which benefited from a Eurostat grant during 2004.

The electronic file covering the actions in question can be found in the form of a list on the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int). This list can be accessed via ‘Institutions’ — ‘European Commission’ — ‘Statistics’ — ‘other activities’ — ‘Calls for tenders and grants’ and then by entering the file ‘Eurostat — List of grants awarded in 2004’.

Eurostat — List of grants awarded in 2004

The list indicates the file number, the unit concerned, the name and the country of the beneficiary, the title of the action, the amount of the commitment (grant) and the percentage of co-financing.

All these actions were the subject of ex-ante publicity.

ex-ante

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1833 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1833

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
35 Tulip Avenue in Floral Park, New York, as the ``Lieutenant Michael R. 
                    Davidson Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT MICHAEL R. DAVIDSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 35 Tulip Avenue in Floral Park, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lieutenant Michael R. Davidson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Michael R. Davidson Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**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 on From 10-Q of Gulfstream International Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Robert M. Brown                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Robert M. Brown Chief Financial Officer |

Date: May 15, 2008

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Monk, Appellant.

Submitted December 5, 2011;

decided March 22, 2012

Reported below, 83 AD3d 35.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Scott B. Tulman, Esq., 369 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10017 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2536

TYRONE HURT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GUS JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-03280-PJM)

Submitted: April 19, 2013 Decided: May 6, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Hurt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing this action for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Hurt v. Johnson, No. 8:12-cv-03280-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 27, 

2012). 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