alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010221EN.01004502.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/45

---

Order of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-359/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Reports of observers sent by the European Union to the Knin region (Croatia) - Interim measure - Inadmissibility - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 221/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: A. Beguin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 17 June 2009 refusing the applicant access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’, and for annulment of the implied refusal decision adopted on confirmatory application and, second, application seeking a declaration that the Council be ordered to authorise access, in electronic form, to the documents requested.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Ivan Jurašinović for annulment of the implied decision of the Council of the European Union rejecting his confirmatory application for access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Ivan Jurašinović for annulment of the implied decision of the Council of the European Union rejecting his confirmatory application for access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’;

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 3. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
II-00341

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kathy Bush <kbpapagayo@yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:21 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.

Kathy Bush

1869 Wandering Road

Encinitas, CA 92024
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Nicanor Perez Rodriguez, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-198031

Appeal From Greenville County John C. Few, Trial Judge G. Edward Welmaker, Post -Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-023 Submitted August 7, 2013 – Filed August 14, 2013

DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appella te Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for

Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-c onviction relief (PCR).

The petition is denied on petitioner's Ques tion II. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner's Question I, dispense with further briefing , and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State , 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

Petitioner's direct appeal issue is dismi ssed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, after review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse; 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 Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel, Therapeutic Communities Research.
    Date: July 26, 2001.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, 
DC 20004.
    Contact Person: Kesinee Nimit, MD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, MD 20891-9547, (301) 435-
1432.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS).

    Dated: June 12, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15468 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34701-34702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; 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 Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 11, 2001.
    Time: 8 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.

[[Page 34702]]

    Contact Person: John Richters, Scientific Review Administrator, 
National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of 
Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN32, MSC Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
594-5971.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-16350 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3818 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to allow infant food combinations 

and dinners as WIC-eligible foods. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to allow infant food 

combinations and dinners as WIC-eligible foods. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Infants Need Food 

5 And Nutrition Today Act’’ or the ‘‘INFANT Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INFANT FOOD COMBINATIONS AND DINNERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Ag9 riculture shall allow infant food combinations and dinners 

10 to be eligible to be served under the supplemental nutrition 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3818 IH

1 program for women, infants, and children under section 

2 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). 

3 (b) REVISION OF REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of 

4 Agriculture shall issue and revise regulations in accord5 ance with subsection (a). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38, 725]

                    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 17, 2001, applicable to workers of Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22262).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided by the company shows that some employees of Ametek/Dixson were temporary workers from SOS Staffing Services, Inc., employed to produce instrumentation for trucks at the Grand Junction, Colorado location of Ametek/Dixson.

Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include temporary workers of SOS Staffing Services, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado leased to Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38, 725 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado including temporary of SOS Staffing Services, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado, engaged in the production of instrumentation for trucks for Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 9, 2000, through April 17, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-16163 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Irby ALEXANDER, et al. v. Gary ORLOWSKI, et al.

No. 17-883 (R46-024).

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
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  Mind2Market,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, James
Clark, CEO of the company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ James Clark
                                         --------------------------------
                                         James Clark, CEO

Dated:  August 24, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,150-01

EX PARTE RAYMOND CLINTON HAMMER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 14-08-9586CR IN THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LAVACA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Hammer v. State, No. 13-15-00165-CR (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi – Edinburg (Oct.

29, 2015) (not designated for publication).

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to strike a juror who stated during voir dire that she would expect Applicant to testify on his

own behalf because he “committed a crime.” 
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: January 11, 2017

Do not publish
# C_2010051EN.01004401.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/44

---

Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)

(Case T-523/09)

2010/C 51/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicant(s):

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2;

| — | In the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2, to state that the Community trade mark concerned possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2, to state that the Community trade mark concerned possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ for goods in class 9

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned was not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is purportedly devoid of any distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

---
Terry G. WATSON, petitioner, v. George A. LOMBARDI, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-9265.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Rondall Clyde MIXSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7846.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2012379EN.01000401.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh

(Case C-502/10) (1)

1

(Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Scope - Article 3(2)(e) - Residence based on a formally limited permit)

2012/C 379/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Applicant:

Defendant: Mangat Singh

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Concept of a ‘formally limited residence permit’ — Residence permit not offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration, but which can be extended indefinitely

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘residence permit [which] has been formally limited’ does not include a fixed-period residence permit, granted to a specific group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely without however offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration where such a formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third country national in the Member State concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---