alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2010 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C‐330/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/43/EC – Company law – Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
# C_2012138EN.01002203.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/22

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Juvyns v Council

(Case F-20/09) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2008 promotion procedure - Comparative examination of merit - Procedure based on 2005/2006 annual staff reports - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)

(2012/C 138/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Juvyns (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and G. Kimberley, and subsequently by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Juvyns to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Juvyns to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00219

- CV

GARY STEVEN DANIELSO N APPELLANT

V.

APRIL MARIE DANIELSO N APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 231ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 231

- 551313

- 14

--------- ---


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------
On October 29, 2014, we received appellant’s “Request For Additional

Time” to file the brief. The motion did not comply with the Tex. R. App. P. 9.1,

9.5, and 10.1(a)(5). On October 30, 2014, we requeste d an amended motion by

November 10, 2014. No motion was recei ved.

On December 2, 2014, we notified appellant that his brief had not been

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R.

1 See Tex. R. A pp. P. 47.4.2 App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dis miss the appeal for want of prosecution

unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: January 8, 2015
Giraud HOPE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6165.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Patrick Ray HANEY, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 15-9161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District denied.
# C_2012025EN.01004802.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 Sniace v Commission

(Case T-238/09) (1)

(State aid - Agreements relating to debt rescheduling - Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market - Obligation to give reasons)

(2012/C 25/92)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sniace (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F.J. Moncholí Fernández and S. Ratting, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/612/CE of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC (OJ 2009 L 210, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sniace SA to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the European Commission's costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sniace SA to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the European Commission's costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Karl R. Wyss, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 14, 2002

                                        /s/  KARL R. WYSS
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Karl R. Wyss
                                        Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                        Executive Officer of the Company
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN S. HALL, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee.

§

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 No. 196,2020

 

 Court Below: Superior Court 

 of the State of Delaware 

 Cr. I.D. Nos. 1507014587 (N)

 1507024327 (N)

 Submitted: July 6, 2020

 Decided: August 5, 2020 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses thereto, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) On June 8, 2020, the appellant, Jonathan Hall, filed a notice of appeal 

from the Superior Court’s March 20, 2020 order denying his motion for correction 

of an illegal sentence and the Superior Court’s April 21, 2020 order denying his 

motion for appointment of counsel. The Senior Clerk docketed the two appeals and 

issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why his appeal of the Superior Court’s 

April 21, 2020 order denying his motion for appointment of counsel should not be 
2

dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory 

appeal.1

(2) On June 26, 2020, Hall filed a response to the notice to show cause, 

arguing that the Superior Court’s order denying his motion for appointment of 

counsel is a final order. The State, at the Court’s request, has replied and clarified 

that Hall filed the motion for appointment of counsel in connection with a motion 

for postconviction relief. Although the Superior Court denied Hall’s motion for 

appointment of counsel by way of its April 21, 2020 order, Hall’s motion for 

postconviction relief remains pending in the Superior Court.

(3) This Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory rulings of the 

Superior Court in a pending criminal case prior to the entry of a final order.

2

 Because 

the Superior Court’s April 21, 2020 order denying Hall’s motion for appointment of 

counsel is an interlocutory order, it is not appealable before the entry of a final order 

on Hall’s motion for postconviction relief.

3

 

 

1 Hall’s appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence 

is Case No. 195, 2020. 

2

 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603, 604 (Del. 1974). 

3 Harris v. State, 2013 WL 4858990, at *1 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013). 
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice
# C_2009167EN.01000601.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/6

---

Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-174/09)

2009/C 167/10

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and S. Schønberg, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2005/32/EC had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2007. Up to the date on which the action was brought, the defendant failed to introduce all of the provisions necessary for transposition of the directive, and in any event failed to inform the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34157-34160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16034]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 01-03]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 
July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 01-03 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[[Page 34158]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.001


[[Page 34159]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.002


[[Page 34160]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.003

[FR Doc. 01-16034 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
GERMAINE R. RUDDICK,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA STATE PRISON,

Appellee.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3371

Opinion filed October 21, 2014.

An appeal from an order of the Union County Circuit Court.

Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge.

Germaine R. Ruddick, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. Because jurisdiction of this court was not invoked within thirty days of 
rendition of the order to be reviewed, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. See Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.110(b). To the extent appellant seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of 

this court to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, the petition is properly filed in the circuit 

court. See, e.g., Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 1999) (writ 

petitions that could require resolution of disputed issues of fact should be handled by 

the circuit courts). 

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

2
Robert RADCLIFFE, et al., petitioners, v. Jose HERNANDEZ, et al.

No. 16-175.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Leigh Ann HARRIS, petitioner, v. The VANGUARD GROUP, INC.

No. 16-601.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1644 

Expressing support for designation of a ‘‘National Veterans History Project 

Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. WAMP) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of a ‘‘National Veterans 

History Project Week’’. 

Whereas 2010 marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Veterans History Project by the United 

States Congress in order to collect and preserve the wartime stories of United States veterans; 

Whereas Congress charged the American Folklife Center at 

the Library of Congress to undertake the Veterans History Project and to engage the public in the creation of 

a collection of oral histories that would be a lasting tribute to individual veterans; 

Whereas the Veterans History Project relies on a corps of 

volunteer interviewers, partner organizations, and an 

array of civic minded institutions nationwide who interview veterans according to the guidelines it provides; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1644 IH 

Whereas these oral histories have created an abundant resource for scholars to gather first-hand accounts of veterans’ experience in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and 

the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts; 

Whereas there are 17,000,000 wartime veterans in the 

United States whose stories can educate people of all 

ages about important moments and events in the history 

of the United States and the world and provide instructive narratives that illuminate the meanings of ‘‘service’’, 

‘‘sacrifice’’, ‘‘citizenship’’, and ‘‘democracy’’; 

Whereas more than 70,000 oral histories have already been 

collected and more than 8,000 oral histories are fully 

digitized and available through the website of the Library 

of Congress; 

Whereas the Veterans History Project will increase the number of oral histories that can be collected and preserved 

and increase the number of veterans it honors; and 

Whereas ‘‘National Veterans Awareness Week’’ has been recognized by Congress in previous years: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a ‘‘National 

3 Veterans History Project Week’’; 

4 (2) recognizes ‘‘National Veterans Awareness 

5 Week’’; 

6 (3) calls on the people of the United States to 

7 interview at least one veteran in their families or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1644 IH 

1 communities according to guidelines provided by the 

2 Veterans History Project; and 

3 (4) encourages local, State, and national orga4 nizations along with Federal, State, city, and county 

5 governmental institutions to participate in support 

6 of the effort to document, preserve, and honor the 

7 service of United States wartime veterans. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)








In connection with the Report of RegalWorks Media, Inc. (f/k/a AmerElite Solutions, Inc.)  (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dane B. West, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to 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.





Date: August 19, 2013





By: /s/ Dane B. West


Dane B. West, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00067

- CR

To mmy Luna

, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CRN

- 000986

- D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first and second motions for extension of time to file the

brief, Appellant’s brief was due on October 4, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). After the

extended due date, Appellant filed a third motion for an extension of time to file the brief until

October 16, 2018.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on October 16, 2018. Any

further motion for extension of time to file the brief will be strongly disfavored.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Frantz BERNARD, et al., petitioners, v. EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 17-860.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Tyrone ROBINSON, petitioner, v. Scott LEWIS, Warden.

No. 17-7161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,861,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,408,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,348,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,408,504
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (15,424)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (462,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>