alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1671 

Congratulating the Seattle Storm for their remarkable season and winning 

the 2010 Women’s National Basketball Association Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. DICKS, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. 

LARSEN of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Seattle Storm for their remarkable season 

and winning the 2010 Women’s National Basketball Association Championship. 

Whereas, on September 16, 2010, the Seattle Storm defeated 

the Atlanta Dream by a score of 87 to 84 to win the 

Women’s National Basketball Association Championship; 

Whereas the Seattle Storm’s victory is the second Women’s 

National Basketball Association Championship in the 11- 

year history of the franchise, as the Storm also won the 

championship in 2004; 

Whereas the Seattle Storm had a regular season record of 

28–6, went undefeated at home, and won all 7 postseason 

games; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1671 IH 

Whereas Seattle Storm owners Dawn Tudeau, Lisa Brummel, 

Anne Levinson, and Ginny Gilder are the first all-female 

ownership group to win a professional sports title; and 

Whereas the entire State of Washington is proud of the accomplishments of the Seattle Storm organization and the 

dedication of the Seattle Storm fans: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates the Seattle Storm for their re3 markable season and winning the 2010 Women’s 

4 National Basketball Association Championship; and 

5 (2) requests the Clerk of the House to transmit 

6 an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Seattle 

7 Storm for appropriate display. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
# C_2015016EN.01004801.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-59/09 RENV) (1)

(Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Annual appraisal - Internal rules - Appeals procedure - Right to be heard - Infringement by the Appeals Committee - Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)

(2015/C 016/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008, which do not include the applicant’s name, and of the applicants appraisal in respect of 2007. Secondly, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee to remain seized notwithstanding a request to exclude a member of that committee. Lastly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant cease the harassment and pay damages for the material and non-material harm sustained.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-59/09, T-264/11 P and F-59/09 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-59/09, T-264/11 P and F-59/09 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29/8/2009, p. 49.

---
Opinion filed March 31, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-17-00056-CR

____________

ANGEL MORENO GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 220th District Court

Comanche County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 00-01-02203-CCCR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Angel Moreno Gonzalez, Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the 

denial of his “Motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” Appellant sought to have the trial court enter 

a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical error in a judgment that was rendered 

in March 2000; he claims that the judgment should reflect that he was convicted of 

the offense of “Assault,” not “Sexual Assault.” We dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 
2

When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that 

the order from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be a final, appealable 

order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue, and we

informed him that this appeal may be dismissed. Appellant filed a response in which 

he states that he timely appealed from the trial court’s denial of the motion.

An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an 

order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc because such an order is not an 

appealable order. Sims v. State, No. 05-14-01438-CR, 2014 WL 6453607, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. 

dism’d). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

March 31, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
Exhibit 32    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 Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Hui Yan Sui, William, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Hui Yan Sui, William Hui Yan Sui, William Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Date: May 18, 2007
# C_2009069EN.01004902.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/49

---

Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)

(Case T-25/09)

(2009/C 69/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Johnson & Johnson GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Gérard, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simca Srl (Cesano Boscone (MI), Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2008 in case R 175/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2008 in case R 175/2008-1;

| — | Allow the opposition and reject the trade mark application No 4 584 587 for the figurative mark ‘YourCare’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the opposition and reject the trade mark application No 4 584 587 for the figurative mark ‘YourCare’; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘YourCare’, for goods in classes 3, 8 and 21

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 913 574 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in classes 3 and 5; German trade mark registration No 30 416 018 of the figurative mark ‘bebe young care’ for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 44; German trade mark registration No 30 414 452 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in class 21.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in its entirety and rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account factual evidence provided by the applicant.

Pleas in law:

---
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.                  

###### United States Institute of Peace

# AGENCY:

United States Institute of Peace.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The agency is soliciting applications for Senior Fellowships from scholars or practitioners who conduct research related to the peaceful resolution of international conflict. Fellowship entails residence at agency in Washington, DC, for up to ten months beginning October 1, 2002.

# DATES:

Application Material Available Upon Request; Receipt Date for Return of Applications: September 17, 2001; Notification of Awards: April, 2002.

# ADDRESSES:

For application materials, visit the Institute's website at www.usip.org, or contact: United States Institute of Peace, Jennings Randolph Program, 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011, (202) 429-6063 (fax), (202) 457-1719 (TTY), jrprogram@usip.org (email).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennings Randolph Program, Phone (202) 429-3886.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Bernice J. Carney,

Director, Office of Administration.

[FR Doc. 01-16277  Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, petitioner, v. Barbara A. IZZARELLI.

No. 17-802.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
II-O0411

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Zoe Alexander <mauizoe@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:38 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.

Zoe Alexander

996-A Kupulau Drive

Kihei, HI 96753
Anthony Ross BLACK, petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 16-6367.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nevada denied.
<PAGE>

                                                        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 Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Partnership as of and for the
period covered by the Report.

Date:  May 12, 2004     By:    /s/Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Ltd.

Technology Funding Venture Partners V, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
# C_2011331EN.01002002.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — CEVA v Commission

(Case T-224/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Specific programme for research and technological development on energy, environment and sustainable development - Protop project - Subsidy contract - Demand for recovery of payments made on account pursuant to a contract for the financing of research - Sub-contracting - Enforcement order - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 331/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, Agent, assisted by E. Bouttier, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the enforcement order decision adopted by the Commission on 6 April 2009 by which the Commission called upon the applicant to refund all the payments made on account within the framework of a subsidy contract relating to a research project falling within the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

1

---
II-01075

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Helen Malvick <helenmalvick@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:27 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.

Helen Malvick

174 Park Blvd

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Travis Lee SIMPSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9530.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2009055EN.01004901.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/49

---

Appeal brought on 16 January 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-20/09 P)

(2009/C 55/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and by C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Marcuccio (Triase, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may adjudicate on the other pleas put forward by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may adjudicate on the other pleas put forward by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 November 2008, by which it annulled the appellant's decision of 30 May 2005, ordering that the applicant at first instance should take compulsory retirement on grounds of his incapacity, which had been established by the Invalidity Committee. In addition, the CST fixed the compensation for non-material damage suffered at the sum of EUR 3 000.

The annulment was granted in reliance exclusively on the first plea in law, based on a failure to state adequate reasons.

In this regard, the appellant states that in reaching this result the tribunal hearing the case at first instance erred in law in holding, in essence, that doctors involved in incapacity proceedings based on Articles 53, 59 and 78 of the Staff Regulations are required to provide, in support of their findings, a statement of reasons similar to that required in the case of occupational disease or for the purposes of Article 73. In so doing, according to the Commission, the CST confused the two procedures, with the result that the incapacity procedure was made unduly cumbersome.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Sierra Resource Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Sandra J. Andre,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated: March 15, 2006                     By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Sandra J. Andre
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.