alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017231EN.01003502.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/35

---

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — SH v Commission

(Case T-283/17)

(2017/C 231/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare the application admissible and well-founded,

In consequence:

| — | Hold that the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Hold that the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

| — | Annul the decision of 13 July 2016 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘the PMO’) and insofar as necessary, the decision expressly rejecting the claim of 3 February 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 13 July 2016 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘the PMO’) and insofar as necessary, the decision expressly rejecting the claim of 3 February 2017;

| — | 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, a plea of illegality raised against the decision of 13 July 2016, since it is based on the application of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and/or birth, the principle of equal treatment, the right to education, the protection of children’s interests, the principle of proportionality and of legitimacy of any derogation from the rights enshrined in the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, a plea of illegality raised against the decision of 13 July 2016, since it is based on the application of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and/or birth, the principle of equal treatment, the right to education, the protection of children’s interests, the principle of proportionality and of legitimacy of any derogation from the rights enshrined in the Charter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in that the decision of 13 July 2016 is based on an unlawful provision of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in that the decision of 13 July 2016 is based on an unlawful provision of the Staff Regulations.

---
#### STATE v. BRIGHT

No. 440PA98

Case below: 131 N.C.App. 57

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 November 1998. Motion by Attorney General for temporary stay dismissed 5 November 1998. Petition by Attorney General for writ of supersedeas allowed 5 November 1998. Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 November 1998.
# C_2010048EN.01000101.xml

| 26.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Notice for the attention of Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply

2010/C 48/01

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen who appears in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/121/CFSP.

The Council of the European Union has determined that Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen should be added to the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe. Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen has consequently be added to the list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2004/161/CFSP by Council Decision 2010/121/CFSP.

The attention of Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include him on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of Mr Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Titan Machinery Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David J. Meyer, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: December 9,  2010 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
|                         | /s/ David J. Meyer |
|                         | David J. Meyer |
|                         | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1259

KIRK E. WEBSTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES MATTIS, Secretary of Defense,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

ROBERT CARDILLO, Director, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; 

JACK W. RICKERT, Assistant General Counsel; JOHN ZIMMERMAN, 

Supervisory Benefits Specialist; JAMES L. LEE, Deputy General Counsel 

(EEOC); KENNETH MORSE, Federal Sector Mediator; PATSY COLEMAN, 

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director, Resolution Center; 

THEODORE HARPER, Supervisor, Debt Processing Branch,

 Defendants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01384-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 17, 2018
2

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirk E. Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kirk E. Webster appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and dismissing this action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), for want of 

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion to strike the response brief and affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Webster v. Mattis, No. 1:17-cv-01384-TSEIDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2018). 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
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00702

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 1048586

Style: Ellen Sedita

v Unilev Management Corp, Unilev Capital Corp, Merit Parking Company, LTD. and

Royal Sweeping and Paving, LLC

Date motion filed * : March 6, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Reply Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant, Ellen Sedita

Document to be filed: Appellant's Reply Brief

Is appeal ac celerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted:

Date Requested: March 26, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 26, 2013

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's si gnature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: M a rch 11, 2013
##### 



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; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Companies.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
October  31, 2007/s/ Keith A. SawottkeKeith A. SawottkeSenior Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer
October 31, 2007
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2024 No. 98-2028 No. 98-2030

___________ Esau Trust; Lee Smith; Kevin Lamont * Evans, * * Appellants, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jody Jackson; Kelly Lock; Herbert * Albright, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmates Esau Trust, Lee Smith, and Kevin Lamont Evans appeal the grant of summary judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for interference with their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their Islamic religion, and for violating their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. On appeal,1 The HONORABLE NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the HONORABLE WILLIAM A. KNOX, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- they argue the district court 1 erred in upholding unnecessarily harsh or discriminatory restrictions and practices imposed by corrections officials at the Central Missouri Correctional Center. After careful de novo review of the summary judgment record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the December 5, 1997, Report, Recommendation and Order of the Magistrate Judge, as affirmed by the district court in its Order of January 20, 1998. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. We reject appellants’ contention that the court erred in failing to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c), because that statute has been declared unconstitutional. See Montano v. Hedgepeth , 120 F.3d 844, 847 n.8 (8th Cir. 1997). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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.                  

###### State Justice Institute

# DATE:

Saturday, June 30, 2001—6 pm-7 pm—Ray's Waterfront Restaurant.

# PLACE:

Seward Small Boat Harbor, AK.

# DATE:

Sunday, July 1, 2001—9 am-5 pm; Monday, July 2, 2001—9 am-12 pm.

# PLACE:

Alyeska Hotel, Girdwood, AK

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Consideration of proposals submitted for Institute funding and internal Institute business.

# PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

Consideration of proposals submitted for Institute funding and internal Institute business other than personnel matters.

# PORTIONS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC:

Discussion of internal personnel matters.

# CONTACT PERSON:

David Tevelin, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684-6100.

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01-13922  Filed 5-30-01; 1:22 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-SC-M
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00497

- CR

Sean Armstrong

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County (1375092D )

August 27, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SE COND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

_________________ Justice Sue Walker
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dwayne WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41385

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 6, 2006.

Robert L Rawls, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*373Thomas John Burbank, Burbank & Hamm, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Dwayne Walker appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Walker argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 201.1(b)(1) and that the enhancement violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, Walker knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the Government seeks to enforce the waiver, Walker’s sentencing claim does not fall within any of the exceptions to the appeal waiver, and the plain language of the waiver bars this appeal. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir.2006); *United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

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

 

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Life Sciences Research, Inc. (“LSR”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew H Baker, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of LSR certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LSR. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| Date:  March 12, 2008 | /s/ Andrew H. Baker     |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|                  | ______________________  |
|                  | Andrew H. Baker         |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7662** 

ROBERT KITHER RUSSELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. GUILFORD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; HIGH POINT COURT HOUSE; JUDGE HENRY FRYE; JAMES GREEN , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00831

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : March 24, 2015 Decided: March 31, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Kither Russell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Ki ther Russell appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(1) (2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We conclud e that Russell’s claim is not cognizable because his state conviction has not been overturned or called into question. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486

- 87 (1994); see also Wilkinson v.
Dotson , 544 U.S. 74, 81

- 8 2 (2005) ( applying Heck to claims of

e quitable relief)
. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court , s ee Russell v. Guilford Cnty
. Mun . , No. 1:14

- cv - 00831

- TDS

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2014) , but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice because Russell may refile his claims should his conviction ever be invalidated by the appropriate court
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### In the Matter of the Adoption of John Doe, an Infant. LMB, Respondent; ERJ, Appellant.

Submitted December 21, 2009;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion to strike respondent’s brief denied.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1323

Crude Oil Option - NYMEX WTI Crude Oil - NYMEX

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled NYMEX WTI put and call options on the NYMEX WTI Crude Oil futures contract specified in 

Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the NYMEX WTI Crude Oil futures first 

nearby contract settlement price for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the average daily settlement price 

during the calendar month of the first nearby NYMEX WTI Crude Oil futures contract (as described in 

Floating Price A) and the strike price, or zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value 

will be the difference between the strike price and the average daily settlement price during the calendar 

month of the first nearby NYMEX WTI Crude Oil futures contract (as described in Floating Price A), or zero 

whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled European-Style Average Price option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be U.S. barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity multiplied by the 

settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in dollars and cents per barrel and prices shall be in multiples of $0.01 per barrel. The minimum 

price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting for a 

contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating Price calculated for 

each contract month.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 21, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00361-CV 

JENNIFER MENDEZ, Appellant 

V. 

BEL AIR ON 16TH, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 005-00594-2019 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief is overdue. By postcard dated July 24, 2019, we notified appellant the 

time for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion 

within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief and an extension motion would 

result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her 

brief nor has she corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

190361F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JENNIFER MENDEZ, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00361-CV V. 

BEL AIR ON 16TH, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 005-00594-2019. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, 

Justices Whitehill and Molberg 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 21, 2019