alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010051EN.01002302.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/23

---

Action brought on 21 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-538/09)

2010/C 51/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, as Belgian legislation does not require an appropriate environmental impact study for certain activities when those activities may affect a Natura 2000 site and as the Kingdom of Belgium has made certain activities subject to a declaratory scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, as Belgian legislation does not require an appropriate environmental impact study for certain activities when those activities may affect a Natura 2000 site and as the Kingdom of Belgium has made certain activities subject to a declaratory scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1),

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on a single plea in law in support of its action alleging that Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (the ‘Habitats’ Directive) has been transposed incorrectly.

In that regard, the applicant submits that that provision requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site be subject to an appropriate environmental impact study. The Belgian legislation does not comply with Community law in so far as it does not require such an impact study as a matter of course and provides for a mere declaratory scheme in respect of certain activities which may affect a Natura 2000 site.

That is true, inter alia, of all the plans or projects which are not subject to an environmental permit in the Walloon Region.

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

1

---
Erick Daniel DAVILA, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-6219.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 13, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 6638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Innovative Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine 
Initiative in Cancer Centers.
    Date: February 19-21, 2001.
    Time: 7:00 pm to 6:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Gerald G. Lovinger, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 
Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8070, Rockville, MD 20892-
7405, 301/496-7987.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-1629 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Jose RUIZ, petitioner, v. Laurel HARRY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, et al.

No. 16-5666.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 34704)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         August 8, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 am to 5:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn—Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aftab A. Ansari, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 5As25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 21, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16358  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2012025EN.01004503.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/45

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-179/10) (1)

(2012/C 25/85)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---
In re Gery Lee Scott, petitioner.

No. 16-7081.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Daryon B. HOWARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7771.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 – GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF**

**(Case T-435/09 R)**

Application for interim measures – Community programmes for research and technological development – Arbitration clause – Order for recovery – Debit note – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Financial loss – No exceptional circumstances – No urgency

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Application for interim measures – Identification of the defendant (Rules
of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 16-17)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification
– Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules
of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-29)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Burden of
proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33)*

4.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment
having regard to the situation of the group to which the company belongs – Application to a natural person exercising control
over that company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 10 July 2009 terminating the applicant’s participation in two Community projects and the debit notes issued on 7 August 2009 by which the Commission claimed repayment of sums paid pursuant to Community projects in which the applicant participated. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The European Commission shall be regarded as the sole defendant. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | The costs are reserved. |
ARIZONA, petitioner, v. Joe Paul MARTINEZ.

No. 16-1489.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.
Armando RAMIREZ, petitioner, v. T&H LEMONT, INCORPORATED.

No. 16-1418.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
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. No s. 1507014587 (N) 1507024327 (N)

Submitted: July 6 , 2020 Decided: August 5, 2020

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

. OR DE R Upon consideration of the notice to show caus e 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

i ssued a notice direc ting 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 be2 dismissed because this Court lack s jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. 1
(2) On June 26, 2 020, 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 replie d and clarified

that Hall filed the motion for app ointment 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

t he Superior Court’s A pril 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 2 9 (b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves Justice
II-01164

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Connie Hammond <chammon@columbus.rr.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:40 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Connie Hammond

166 Acton Road

Columbus, OH 43214
David SHUTACK, petitioner, v. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, et al.

No. 17-1040.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
II-00381

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Randolph Sharpe <morgansharpe@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:09 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Randolph Sharpe

212 Merry Street

Madison, WI 53704
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATION





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community
Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and
the results of operations of the Company for such period.





Date:
      August 13, 2008
            
            /s/ P. Douglas
      RichardP.
      Douglas Richard
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ R. Jerry
      GilesR.
      Jerry Giles
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Duly
      Authorized Officer)
Benjamin MINIOR, petitioner, v. RHODE ISLAND.

No. 17-1275.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1567Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island denied
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

L ORI W. W ILL V ICE C HANCELLOR L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N. K ING S TREET , S UITE 11400
W ILMINGTON
, D ELAWARE 19801

- 3734

February 3, 2023

Ra ymond J. DiCamillo , Esq uire Kevi n M. Gallagher

, Esq uire Ale xander M. Krischik

, Esq uire Edmon d S. Kim, Esq uire Nicholas F

. Mastria, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger

, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, D elaware 19801

RE: In re Lordstown Motors Corp.

, C .A. No. 2023

- 0083

- LWW

Dear Counsel,

This letter memor ializes the court ’ s Februar y 2, 2023 oral ruling on the

Motion for Expedited Proceedings (the “ Motion ” ) filed by petitioner Lordstown

Motors Corp. ( the “ Company ” )

. The Motion is granted for the reasons explained

in that oral ru ling

.
The court will hold a hearing on the C o mpany ’ s request for relief pursuant to

8 Del. C. § 205 (the “ Petition ” ) at 11:00 a.m. on February 20, 20 23 at the Leonard

L. Williams Justice Center in Wilmington, Delaware. T h e Company shall file a

Form 8

- K providing notice of the hearing to its stockholders no fewer than 10 daysC.A . No. 202 3

- 0083

- LWW

February 3, 2023 Page 2 of 2

before February 20. That Form 8

- K shall : attach the P etition or (i f the Co mpany

prefers to post the Petition o n its website rather than attaching it to the Form 8

- K)

provide a website address to the location of the P etition; describe the relief sought

in the Petition; inform stoc k holders of the time, date, and lo cation of the hearing o n

the Petition; and explain how stockholders can appear and be heard at or in

advance of the hearing.

T o the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Sincere ly your s ,

/s/ Lo ri W. W

ill

Lor i W. Wi ll
V ice Chan cellor
William T. MONTGOMERY, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-7611.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Lucas County denied.
II-01069

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

John Daugherty <daugherty51 @yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:32 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

John Daugherty

1978 Cotmtess Court

Naples, FL 34110