alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012025EN.01001401.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-379/10) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - General principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance - Exclusion of any liability on the part of the Member State for an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by a court adjudicating at last instance - Limitation by the national legislature of the Member State's liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct committed by such a court)

(2012/C 25/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro and M. Nolin, acting as Agents

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the general principle of the liability of Member States for infringement of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance — Liability limited to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that






  — | by excluding all liability of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals through an infringement of European Union law on the part of a court adjudicating at last instance when that infringement results from an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that

—

by excluding all liability of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals through an infringement of European Union law on the part of a court adjudicating at last instance when that infringement results from an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court and

| — | by limiting that liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct, |
| --- | --- |

—

by limiting that liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct,

pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of Law No 117on the reparation of damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges [legge n. 117 (sul) risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell’ esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità civile dei magistrati], of 13 April 1988 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

---
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J AN 21, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 2 6 0 8 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 1 4 9

- C R

- 1

- 0 0 3

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

M I C H A E L N E L S O N M U R P H Y ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , B I R C H a n d M A R C U S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

J o e C a r l J o r d a n , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r M i c h a e l N e l s o n M u r p h y , h a s f i l e d am o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
.

C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f

t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d

M u r p h y ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34986-34987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16477]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 188: Minimum Aviation System Performance 
Standards for High Frequency Data Link

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 188 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 188: Minimum Aviation System 
Performance Standards for High Frequency Data Link.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 10, 2001 starting at 1 pm.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is 
hereby given for a Special Committee 188 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

July 10, 2001

<bullet> Opening Plenary Session (Chairman's Introductory Remarks, 
Approval of Previous Meeting Summary, Review of Agenda and Work Plan)
<bullet> Working Group 1, Review of High Frequency Data Link (HFDL) 
Minimum Aviation System Performance Standard (MASPS) Status and Draft 
Report
<bullet> Closing Plenary Session (Review Actions Items, Make 
Assignments, Other Business, Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting, 
Adjourn)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.


[[Page 34987]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2001.
Janice L. Peters,
FAA Special Assistant, RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 01-16477 Filed 6-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
**Exhibit 15(a).7**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-12958, No. 333-11288, No. 333-118619 and No. 333-123666 on Form S-8 and No. 333-145834 on Form F-3 of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated June 20, 2006 (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the previously issued consolidated financial statements because of correction of misstatements, and our report is dated July 2, 2007 as to the effects of thisrestatement), relating to the consolidated financial statements of China.com Inc. and its subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 1 of CDC Corporation andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 

Hong Kong 

June 30, 2008
Edward Donnell AMMONS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8093.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00890

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Debbie Lackowitz <debbie061653 @aol. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:17 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.

Debbie Lackowitz

3066 Radcliffe Drive

Yorktown Hgts, NY 10598
# C_2009205EN.01004602.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/46

---

Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Serrano Aranda v OHIM — Burg Groep (LE LANCIER)

(Case T-265/09)

2009/C 205/85

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Enrique Serrano Aranda (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Burg Groep BV (Bergen, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2009 in Case R-366/2008-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2009 in Case R-366/2008-1.

| — | On the basis of that annulment, uphold the opposition and implement the legal consequences arising therefrom by rejecting Community trade mark application 3 343 365 in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the basis of that annulment, uphold the opposition and implement the legal consequences arising therefrom by rejecting Community trade mark application 3 343 365 in its entirety.

| — | Order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay the costs of these proceedings, should they be opposed, and reject the forms of order which OHIM and the intervening parties seek. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay the costs of these proceedings, should they be opposed, and reject the forms of order which OHIM and the intervening parties seek.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Burg Groep B.V.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word component ‘LE LANCIER’ (Application No 3 343 365) for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Enrique Serrano Aranda.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘EL LANCERO’ No 838 740 for goods in Class 30; Spanish figurative mark No 941 979 containing the word component ‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 30; Spanish word mark No 943 767‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 31, and Spanish word mark No 1 806 835‘El LANCERO’ for goods in Class 29.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011319EN.01002002.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/20

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Mugraby v Council and Commission

(Case T-292/09) (1)

1

(Action for failure to act - Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Manifest inadmissibility - Actions for damages - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2011/C 319/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Muhamad Mugraby (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: J. Regouw and L. Spigt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, B. Driessen and E. Finnegan, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against the Republic of Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement concluded between European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon of the other part, and an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result those institutions’ failure to act.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Muhamad Mugraby is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Muhamad Mugraby is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
Exhibit
      23.1





Consent
      of Independent Accountants


Skystar
      Bio-Pharmaceutical Company


Audited
      Financial Statements


December
      31, 2007








We
      consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K of our report dated March 31, 2008 on our
      audit of the financial statements of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company and
      Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007, and for the year then ended, which our
      reports are incorporated in the Form 10-K.







/s/
      Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP




Walnut,
      California


April
      1,
      2008
Jarrod Reese SPICER, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-7135.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
Robert DALLAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

No. 16-1434.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00704

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rusty Simpson <rusty. simpson@gmail, corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:17 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

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 (PIN 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.

Rusty Simpson

1523 Marshall St.

Baltimore, MD 21230
Barry CRESPO, petitioner, v. William J. HIGGINS, Jr., et al.

No. 17-7428.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         210934
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10476645
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4323100
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         251838
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6513627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          918339
<BONDS>                                        5573900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21388
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6513627
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203713
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               386239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (323871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (323871)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.14)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3826 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3826

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the 
    Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal 
                        background check system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2019

Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Bost, Mr. 
 Meuser, Mr. Banks, and Mr. Bilirakis) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the 
    Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal 
                        background check system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TRANSMITTAL OF 
              CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR USE 
              BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 5501A the following new section:
``Sec. 5501B. Prohibition on transmittal of certain information to the 
              Department of Justice for use by the national instant 
              criminal background check system
    ``The Secretary may not transmit to any entity in the Department of 
Justice, for use by the national instant criminal background check 
system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act, personally identifiable information of a beneficiary, 
solely on the basis of a determination by the Secretary to pay benefits 
to a fiduciary for the use and benefit of the beneficiary under section 
5502 of this title, without the order or finding of a judge, 
magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 
such beneficiary is a danger to themselves or others.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 5501A the following new item:

``5501B. Prohibition on transmittal of certain information to the 
                            Department of Justice for use by the 
                            national instant criminal background check 
                            system.''.
                                 <all>
```