alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012151EN.01000301.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

(Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Right of residence - Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised - Retention of Turkish nationality - Date of naturalisation)

2012/C 151/04

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:

Defendants: Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence for members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised but has retained Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State can still invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESSIE McDANIEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ROBERT WILKIE*, Secretary, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15256 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00003-JAD-PAL 

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2018***

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Essie McDaniel appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Trunk v. City of San 

 

* Robert Wilkie has been substituted for his predecessor, David J. 

Shulkin, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15256 

Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis 

supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 

2008), and we affirm.

Summary judgment on McDaniel’s retaliation claim was proper because 

McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for not hiring McDaniel was

pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 

1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining burden-shifting framework for Title VII 

retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext); see also Little v. 

Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must 

offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
Mattie WALLS, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

No. 17-1239.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina denied.
Brian Gene McCOY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5484.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Sessions v. Dimaya,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018).
# L_2005133EN.01001101.xml

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/11

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 166/2004

of 3 December 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 148/2004 of 29 October 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 148/2004 of 29 October 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2003/82/EC of 11 September 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards standard phrases for special risks and safety precautions for plant-protection products (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2003/82/EC of 11 September 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards standard phrases for special risks and safety precautions for plant-protection products (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 12a (Council Directive 91/414/EEC) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32003 L 0082: Commission Directive 2003/82/EC of 11 September 2003 (OJ L 228, 12.9.2003, p. 11).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32003 L 0082: Commission Directive 2003/82/EC of 11 September 2003 (OJ L 228, 12.9.2003, p. 11).’.

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/82/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 4 December 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 102, 21.4.2005, p. 21.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 228, 12.9.2003, p. 11.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Darren Holm, Chief Executive Officer of Silver
Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:       May 17, 2004

By /s/Darren Holm
   ----------------------
Darren Holm
Chief Executive Officer



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Dempsey Mork, Chief Financial Officer of Silver
Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:       May 17, 2004

By /s/Dempsey Mork
   ----------------------
Dempsey Mork
Chief Financial Officer
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




I, Michael I. Connolly, the Interim President and Interim Co-Chief Executive Officer of Global Axcess Corp (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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 results of operations of the Company.




Dated:May 04, 2011/s/ Michael I. ConnollyName: Michael I. ConnollyTitle:   Interim President and Interim Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### MARKS v. COE, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 8716.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued Jan. 29, 1945.

Decided Feb. 12, 1945.

*160Mr. Orville N. Greene, of New York City, with whom Mr. Karl W. Flocks, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant. Mr. S. Michael Pineles, of New York City, also -entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. E. L. Reynolds, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint brought to secure a patent under Section 4915 R.S.1 Appellant has designed a method of lighting which eliminates glare. It consists of putting a polarizer in front of the light and arranging the lamp so that the rays fall on the surface to be illuminated at an angle of between twenty and seventy degrees. The utility of placing a polarizer in front of a source of light to eliminate glare has been known since 1895. At least three patents have been granted which embody this principle. The appellant has an ingenious new arrangement of the polarizer but we do not think the evidence justifies disturbing the findings of the Patent Office and the trial court that this new arrangement of well known elements is not patentable.

Affirmed.

1

35 U.S.C.A. § 63.
SOUTH DAKOTA, petitioner, v. WAYFAIR, INC., et al.

No. 17-494.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 13, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,519
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (120)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,302
<PP&E>                                           3,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,918
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,051
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    196
<INCOME-TAX>                                       136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 60
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        60
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Call with NFA
  
    



  Participants discussed SEF compliance issues, temporary registration, and timing issues.
      
  When
              08/14/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Amir Zaidi

  Visitor(s)
              Ed Dasso (NFA), Jane Croessmann (NFA)

  Organization(s)
              NFA


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40672 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DARWIN SANTIAGO MARTINEZ

- ANDINO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 289

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM : * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darwin Santiago Martinez

- Andino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- And ino h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2 1 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40672 Document: 00513013606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015No. 14

- 40672
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

m otion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40672 Document: 00513013606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Ryan Scott KONSDORF, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN

No. 17-8112.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MATTIE LOMAX, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

LUIS G. MONTALDO

, SHIRLEY SHABAZZ,

MICHAEL HENDERSON, LISA LESUER, CHARLENE STAFFORD, TANYA WATKING, ALAN ADRIAN TAYLOR, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1456

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in No. 1:09

- cv

- 23293

- KMM, Judge K . Michael Moore.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

In response to this court’s order directing the parties to address whether this appeal should be dismissed

, Luis G. Montaldo urges dismissal. Mattie Lomax oppos es dismissal and requests summary judgment. Because we lack jurisdiction , we must dismiss the appeal. Case: 23-1456 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2023LOMAX v. MONTALDO 2

Ms

. L omax brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the Clerk and other employees of the state’s Eleventh JudicialCircuit of Florida conspired to deprive her of certain constitutional rights. On Januar y 11, 2011, the district court dismissed her complaint

. I n March 2011, the district court
denied reconsideration. The district court has since denied
several submissions filed by Ms. Lomax . In particular, on January 22, 2020, the district court struck a s “frivolous and
vexatious” her “emergency notice of removal” filed that same day . ECF No. 1

- 2 at 31

. On January 23, 2023, Ms.
Lomax filed this appeal seek ing review of that order.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdic tional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S.205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed h er notice of appeal three

years after the January 2020 order she identified in her notice of appeal

. At least because of this untimeliness, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer
under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would not be timely in any other court of appeals.

Accordingly

,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismis sed

. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs

.

June 13 , 2023
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 23-1456 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2023
Brian HARLING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7765.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001076691
<NAME> OCONEE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,428,512
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,640,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 20,055,424
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,303,990
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        16,091,715
<LOANS>                                     76,779,884
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,427,420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             130,652,383
<DEPOSITS>                                 116,120,188
<SHORT-TERM>                                   558,169
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,475,842
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,800,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,698,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             130,652,383
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,676,432
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,756,040
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               340,869
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,773,341
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,019,037
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,039,536
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,733,805
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,720
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              14,250
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,109,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,847,061
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,847,061
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,031,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.08
<LOANS-NON>                                     30,571
<LOANS-PAST>                                       530
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,362,530
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   91,925
<RECOVERIES>                                    96,095
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,427,420
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,427,420
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>