alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012227EN.01000201.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-542/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Access to education for migrant workers and their family members - Funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the territory of the Member State concerned - Residence requirement)

2012/C 227/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and K. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Access to education — Funding of studies abroad — Residence requirement — ‘3 out of 6 years’ rule

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring that migrant workers and dependent family members comply with a residence requirement — namely, the ‘three out of six years’ rule — in order to be eligible to receive funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring that migrant workers and dependent family members comply with a residence requirement — namely, the ‘three out of six years’ rule — in order to be eligible to receive funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, petitioner, v. ANZ SECURITIES, INC., et al.

No. 16-373.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

In re Phillip Jason Tong
, * From the 106th District Court of Gaines County, Trial Court No. 15

- 05

- 17045

.
No. 11

- 15

- 00129

- CV * August 6, 2015
* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (P anel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered the State of Texas’s motion for dismiss al of this appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in
accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed again st the State of Texas.
---

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, W. Pierce Carson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Santa
Fe Gold Corporation (the "registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
  financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
  respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
  registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: November 19, 2008 | By: | /s/ W.
      Pierce Carson                            
|----------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                        |     | W. Pierce Carson                                      
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer, President, Director
      and
|                        |     | Principal Accounting Officer                          



---
Vernon MADISON, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-7505.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Alabama, Mobile County granted.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Deichmann v OHIM (Representation of a chevron with perforated
border)**

**(Case T-202/09)**

Community trade mark – International registration designating the European Community – Figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of distinctive character – Mark consisting in the representation of one of the elements constituting the product – Distinctive
character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 40-41)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 34-35, 54)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 (Case R 224/2007-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of a figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Mark concerned: | Figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border for goods in Classes 10 and 25 (International Registration designating the European Community, No W00881226) |
| Decision of the examiner: | Protection refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs. |
II-00659

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

raquel brac <raquelbster@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:52 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.

raquel brac

151 judson st.

redlands, CA 92374
# C_2009113EN.01004002.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/40

---

Action brought on 12 March 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-107/09)

2009/C 113/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, agent assisted by T. Eicke, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in part, namely in so far as it has the effect of applying a correction to the Fruit and Vegetable aid scheme against the United Kingdom for alleged weaknesses in its control system concerning the recognition of POs created before 2002 (not providing technical means) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in part, namely in so far as it has the effect of applying a correction to the Fruit and Vegetable aid scheme against the United Kingdom for alleged weaknesses in its control system concerning the recognition of POs created before 2002 (not providing technical means) and

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of present application, the applicant seeks the partial annulement of Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation No 2200/96 (2) in finding that the United Kingdom government had failed to observe the conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of Producer Organisation in the fruit and vegetable sector.

2

The applicant contends that the Commission’s restrictive interpretation of Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation 2200/96 underlying the relevant aspects of the contested decision is inconsistent both with the language and with the object and purpose of that provision.

---

(1)  Notified under document number C(2008) 7820, OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1

2

---
CHATEAU FOGHORN LP, petitioner, v. Wesley HOSFORD.

No. 17-782.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 10, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15375

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-03116-CV-TWT-1

V. STEPHEN MOORE, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus 

ACCENTURE, LLP, 

ACCENTURE UNITED STATES GROUP MEDICAL PLAN,

ACCENTURE UNITED STATES GROUP DENTAL PLAN,

ACCENTURE UNITED STATES BASIC LIFE/ACCIDENTAL

DEATH & DISMEMBERMENT INSURANCE PLAN,

ACCENTURE UNITED STATES OPTIONAL LIFE INSURANCE

PLAN,

ACCENTURE UNITED STATES OPTIONAL ACCIDENTAL DEATH

& DISMEMBERMENT INSURANCE PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

 (February 10, 2006)

Before CARNES, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

V. Stephen Moore filed his original complaint seeking relief from

defendants’ new leave policy on October 25, 2004. He styled it as a class action,

but never moved for nor was it ever certified as such. Nor was the original

complaint ever served on any of the defendants.

On December 8, 2004, Moore filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(a)(i). According to Moore’s Initial Brief on

appeal, he sought voluntary dismissal “in order to gain time to more properly

represent the class through negotiated settlement rather than litigation.”

On December 9, 2004, Moore states that he was notified by the defendants

that they had changed their leave policy. Subsequently, he filed a motion seeking

attorneys’ fees, costs and for discovery in the dismissed case, arguing that he was a

prevailing party. The district court denied the motion, holding that Moore had

voluntarily dismissed the action before he obtained any relief for himself or the

putative class.

Our review of the briefs and the record support the conclusion of the district

court, and finding no reversible error, the denial if the motion is

AFFIRMED.
Gilma RUIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6429.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00326-CV

CITY OF ARLINGTON, Appellant

V.

STACY WESSON-PITTS AND BENARD 

PITTS, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-330806-21)

January 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial court’s order denying appellant City of Arlington’s (City) plea 

to the jurisdiction. It is ordered that the trial court’s order denying the City’s plea to 

the jurisdiction is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that the City shall bear the costs of this appeal, for which 

let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
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 Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M.
Madden, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ DAVID M. MADDEN                                    
|David M. Madden                                        
|Interim President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

March 3, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1636 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1636

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 28, 2010.
Whereas the Hoover Dam, a concrete arch-gravity storage dam, was built in the 
        Black Canyon of the Colorado River between the States of Nevada and 
        Arizona, forever changing how water is managed across the West;
Whereas, on September 30, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the 
        Hoover Dam;
Whereas the construction of the dam created Lake Mead, a reservoir that can 
        store two years average flow of the Colorado River providing vitally 
        critical flood control, water supply, and electrical power to help 
        create and support the economic growth and development of the 
        Southwestern United States;
Whereas the Hoover Dam has prevented an estimated $50,000,000,000 in flood 
        damages in the Lower Colorado River Basin, provides water for more than 
        18,000,000 people, for 1,000,000 acres of farmland in Arizona, 
        California, and Nevada, and for 500,000 acres in Mexico, and produces on 
        average 4,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric power each year;
Whereas the Hoover Dam, an engineering marvel at 726.4 feet from bedrock to 
        crest, was the highest dam in the world at construction;
Whereas the Hoover Dam is an enduring symbol of the country's ingenuity and 
        persistence of hard working Americans at the time of the Great 
        Depression;
Whereas the Hoover Dam is the model for major water management projects around 
        the world; and
Whereas the Hoover Dam is registered as a National Historic Landmark on the 
        United States National Register of Historic Places and is considered one 
        of seven modern engineering wonders by the American Society of Civil 
        Engineers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) celebrates and acknowledges the thousands of workers and 
        families that overcame difficult working conditions and great challenges 
        to make construction of the facility possible;
            (2) celebrates and acknowledges the economic, cultural, and historic 
        significance of the Hoover Dam and its role in meeting future 
        challenges;
            (3) recognizes the past, present, and future benefits of its 
        construction to the agricultural, industrial, and urban development of 
        the Southwestern United States; and
            (4) joins the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, and the entire 
        Nation in celebrating the 75th anniversary of the dedication of the 
        Hoover Dam.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Ruben TOVAR, petitioner, v. David BAUGHMAN, Acting Warden.

No. 16-5886.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2011120EN.01000901.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/9

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Almería — Spain) — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-230/10) (1)

1

2011/C 120/17

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0635

_____________________________
K ELVIN D. H ARRIS , Appellant,

v.

R ICKY D. D IXON , Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. J . Lee Marsh, Judge

.

June 17, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kelvin D. Harris, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Juanita Villalpando
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.