alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Government of Gibraltar v Commission**

**(Case T-176/09)**

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2009/95/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Inclusion in the site of Community importance called ‘Estrecho oriental’ of an area of the territorial waters of Gibraltar
and of an area of the high seas – Partial annulment – Non-severability – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Subject-matter – Partial annulment – Condition – Severability of the contested provisions – Provisions
of a Commission decision enlarging the area of a site of Community importance – Annulment entailing a modification of the
substance of the decision – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2009/95) (see paras
34, 37-42)*

2.                     *Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Action inadmissible
– Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – No impact on the assessment of the admissibility of the
action (see paras 47-49)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393) to the extent that it extends the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (ES6120032) to the territorial waters of Gibraltar (both within and outside Site UKGIB0002) and to an area of the high seas. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Government of Gibraltar is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | The Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are ordered to bear their own costs. |
Farad ROLAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5622.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
As of 22 October 2010

1

OTC Derivatives Regulators’ Forum

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

33 Liberty Street

10th Floor, Multi-Purpose Room

New York, NY 10045-0001

Joint Session with Regulators and CCPs

Tuesday, 2 November, 2010

2:00 pm – 4:30 pm

Proposed Agenda

1. Short (2 minute) presentations by each central counterparty (CCP), providing an 

overview of its services and information on any plans to increase its service offering

a. CME

b. Eurex

c. ICE Clear Europe

d. ICE Trust US

e. International Derivatives Clearing Group (IDCG)

f. Japan Securities Clearing Corporation

g. LCH.Clearnet Ltd/SwapClear

h. LCH.Clearnet SA

i. SGX Asiaclear

2. Open discussion on the following questions:

a. In light of legislative developments regarding clearing of OTC derivatives 

transactions, what are the risks and considerations in expanding clearing 

services? In particular, please discuss the challenges and potential solutions 

associated with:

i. Increasing product clearing eligibility;

ii. Accepting smaller dealers, buy-side firms and foreign institutions as 

direct participants;

iii. Expanding client clearing; 

iv. Facilitating customer segregation and portability; 

v. Clearing trades between two indirect participants;

vi. Creating links between CCPs; and

vii. Ensuring comparable risk management frameworks among CCPs
As of 22 October 2010

2

b. What information are CCPs making publicly available to facilitate market 

transparency? Currently, there is no commonality regarding information that 

CCPs make publicly available about their respective clearing activity. Are there 

specific areas in which CCPs would appreciate common guidance from 

authorities?

c. What actions, guidance or coordination do CCPs seek from authorities and 

where can the Forum, which brings together different types of authorities across 

jurisdictions, add value?

d. Plain Language Summaries (PLS)

i. In preparing/updating the PLS, what feedback would CCPs like to share 

with the Forum?

ii. What would be an appropriate frequency for regulators to request 

updates to the PLS? For example, every two years or sooner whenever 

there are major changes to the services? How soon after major changes 

could PLS updates be prepared?

3. Summary of discussion
Dennly R. BECKER, petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, et al.

No. 16-597.

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.
Charles REYNOLDS, petitioner, v. BETHEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 16-1403.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
Kenneth D. HUMPHREY, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

No. 16-9396.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2010011EN.01003501.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/35

---

Appeal brought on 11 November 2009 by Eckehard Rosenbaum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission

(Case T-452/02 P)

2010/C 11/65

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 10 September 2009 by the Civil Service Tribunal in the case of Rosenbaum v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 10 September 2009 by the Civil Service Tribunal in the case of Rosenbaum v Commission;

Rosenbaum

Commission

| — | set aside the Commission’s grading decision of 13 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Commission’s grading decision of 13 February 2007;

| — | require the Commission to grade the appellant in a manner which is non-discriminatory and consistent with his professional experience, and to take all further necessary measures resulting from the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to grade the appellant in a manner which is non-discriminatory and consistent with his professional experience, and to take all further necessary measures resulting from the judgment;

| — | order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the dispute. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal has been brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission, by which the action brought by the present appellant was dismissed.

Rosenbaum

Commission

In support of his appeal, the appellant first of all submits that the Civil Service Tribunal conducted an incomplete examination of the first plea in law. The Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant continues, also erred in law in rejecting the other three pleas as these, in contrast to the view taken by the Tribunal, were appropriate for the purpose of setting aside the contested measure. In conclusion, the appellant expresses the view that the lack of higher-quality selection procedures has a bearing on the issue of the legality of the contested decision and that the rejection of the evidence adduced in this connection is for that reason unlawful.

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 11301-001 Georgia]

                    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original major license for the Carters Regulation Dam Hydroelectric Project located on the Coosawatte Rivery in Murray County, Georgia, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. In the EA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and has concluded that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigative measure, would                           ( print page 34181)                        not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.                

                    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, and may also be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-16060 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Fenyang Ajamu STEWART, petitioner, v. The UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM, et al.

No. 16-9353.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 filing of the Annual Report of Virilitec Industries,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Robert Petty, the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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, 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 as
of, and for, the periods represented in the Report.

Dated: February 17, 2004


/s/ Robert Petty
-----------------------
Robert Petty
Chief Executive Officer
Roy Edward BROWNLEE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7877.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2118

KIMBERLY B. ZIZZI; DOUGLAS J. ZIZZI,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CA-00-9-6)

Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly B. Zizzi, Douglas J. Zizzi, Appellants Pro Se. Teresa

Ellen McLaughlin, Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly B. Zizzi and Douglas J. Zizzi appeal from the district court’s orders dismissing their tax refund suit and denying

their motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the

district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Zizzi

v. United States, No. CA-00-9-6 (W.D. Va. June 26 & Aug. 8, 2000).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Ramon VALDEZ-JAIME, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7213.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Francisco C. MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-6835.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011269EN.01004701.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)

(Case T-160/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI - Earlier Community word mark Ophtal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 269/102

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trias de Bes, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2009 (Case R 1471/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dimisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dimisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Alcon Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Alcon Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 167 of 18.7.2009.

1

---
II-00156

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly McConnell <prvt@2ezgroup.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:05 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.

Kelly McConnell

11375 SW Erste

Tigard, OR 97223
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.



|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|Date: November 14, 2003 | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        |
Kernio DULCIO, petitioner, v. Hilton HALL, Jr., Warden, et al.

No. 16-5982.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eric Wilton BURTON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 15-9399.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Phyllis STALLINGS, petitioner, v. DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

No. 16-563.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
## In the Court of Appeals Seco nd Appellate District of Texas at Fort W orth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00223

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal fr om the 16th District Court Denton County , Texas Trial Court No. 21

- 5086

- 16

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memoran dum O pinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### C.C., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant S.C. (Father), appearing pro se, attempts to a ppeal from a June 2,
202 2 “ O rder G ranting Nonsuit ” that grant ed (1) the Department of F amily and
Protective Services ’ motion for nonsuit , dismissing the De partment as a party, and (2) a temporary restraining order

. A counterpetitio n filed by C.C. ( Mother ) remains

p ending in the trial court. This court has appellate jurisdi ction only over appeals from final judgments and from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately appealable. Lehmann v. Har

– Con C orp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 1 95 (Tex. 200 1); see, e.g. , Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. A judgment is final if it disposes of every pending claim and party. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 205. Because the trial court ’ s

o rder granting nonsuit does not dis pose of Mother ’ s count erpetition , the judgment i s
not final. On June 23, 2022, w e notified the parties of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court ’ s order granting nonsuit does not

app ear to be a final judgment or an a ppealable interlocutor y order. We cautioned the parties that we could dismiss the appeal absent a response filed by July 5 , 2022, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We did

not receive a response.3 Because we hav e received no response from any pa rty showing gr ounds for continuing the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: July 21, 2022
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12993

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-10029-JEM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARIEL ARIAS,

a.k.a. Pichinga

a.k.a. Pajia

a.k.a. Pinguilla

ANTONIO COMIN,

a.k.a. Tony,

DANIEL ROCHELA,

JOSE VALDES DIAZ,

a.k.a. Pepito,

Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 4, 2016)

Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and EBEL,

∗ Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

In this consolidated appeal, appellants Ariel Arias, Antonio Comin, Daniel 

Rochela, and Jose Valdes Diaz separately challenge their various convictions and 

sentences arising from a 2012 scheme to smuggle aliens into the United States

from Cuba. The appellants raise a variety of arguments, most of which overlap. 

After review of the parties’ briefs and the relevant law, and having had the benefit 

of oral argument, we hold that the district court committed no reversible error. 

Therefore, we affirm. 

Arias, Comin, Diaz, and Rochela all assert that their convictions should be 

vacated due to insufficient evidence and because the district court erroneously 

admitted various pieces of evidence. These arguments fail. First, based on the 

evidence presented at trial, “a reasonable jury could have found [each appellant] 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 497 

(11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the 

appellants’ convictions. See id. Second, the appellants’ evidentiary challenges are 

unavailing because, even assuming the district court erred in admitting the 

evidence at issue, such error was harmless. See United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 

1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2000).

 ∗ Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Rochela and Diaz also argue that their conspiracy convictions must be 

vacated because the conspiracy-related evidence presented at trial materially varied 

from the allegations in their indictments. However, relief for a material variance 

requires proof of substantial prejudice, see United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 

1314, 1327 (11th Cir. 1997), which Rochela and Diaz have not demonstrated. 

Finally, Rochela and Comin assert that their respective sentences are 

unreasonable, but we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

sentencing either appellant. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89 

(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (holding that appellate courts review challenges to the 

reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 3 of 3