alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012032EN.01001202.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/12

---

Order of the Court of 6 October 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Interpretation of national law - Distortion - Concept - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

2012/C 32/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellants: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) (represented by: T. Salonico. G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and G. Conte, acting as Agents.)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeals are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeals are dismissed.

| 2. | ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, Cementir Italia Srl and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, Cementir Italia Srl and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

1

---
Alvin Sheldon KANOFSKY, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-1271.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 17-8246.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1127

KEMIL A. MESAYS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of the Department of

State,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA03-3256-RDB)

Submitted: May 14, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004

 

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kemil A. Mesays, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kemil A. Mesays appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint as untimely

filed, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying his

request for a refund of the filing fee. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Mesays v. Powell, No. CA-03-

3256-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 24, 2003; Dec. 16, 2003; filed Jan. 9, 2004,

entered Jan. 22, 2004). 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
Shaft JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5046.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,881,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,763
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,893,926)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,768)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,768)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,768)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011269EN.01001502.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

(Case C-252/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public procurement - European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) - Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application - Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid - Contract award criteria - Sub-criteria - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 269/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaaten)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05 (Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA) in so far it dismissed the appellant’s application for the annulment of the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (‘EMSA’) of 6 January 2005 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in a tendering procedure relating to the validation of the SafeSeaNet application and its further development

Evropaïki Dynamiki

EMSA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
XING LIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5767.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 Second 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.01002301.xml

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/23

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 172/2004

of 3 December 2004

amending Annex XX (Environment) 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 XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2004 of 24 September 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2004 of 24 September 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2004/224/EC of 20 February 2004 laying down arrangements for the submission of information on plans or programmes required under Council Directive 96/62/EC in relation to limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2004/224/EC of 20 February 2004 laying down arrangements for the submission of information on plans or programmes required under Council Directive 96/62/EC in relation to limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 21ah (Commission Decision 2004/279/EC) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

| ‘21ai. | 32004 D 0224: Commission Decision 2004/224/EC of 20 February 2004 laying down arrangements for the submission of information on plans or programmes required under Council Directive 96/62/EC in relation to limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 27). |
| --- | --- |

‘21ai.

The provisions of the Decision shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:

The following codes “, Iceland: IS, Liechtenstein: LI, Norway: NO” shall be added after the code “United Kingdom: UK” in the notes to Form 1 in the Annex to the Decision.’

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2004/224/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 64, 10.3.2005, p. 76.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 27.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# L_2006185EN.01002901.xml

| 6.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 185/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/29

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

The Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Armenia, to take account of the accession of 10 new Member States to the European Union, which the Council and the Commission decided to conclude on 21 February 2005
   (1), entered into force on 1 March 2005, the last notification of the completion of procedures under Article 5.2 of the Protocol being received on 21 February 2005.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 77, 23.3.2005, p. 9.

1

---
Lawrence Alfred LANDRUM, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 16-9596.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
Juan Daniel MARES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8385.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Mark FRENCH, petitioner, v. Blair JONES, et al.

No. 17-1255.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the report of Rezconnect Technologies, Inc. (the
         "Company) on form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 filed
         herewith (the "Report") I, Derek J. Brent, Chief Financial Officer, of
         the Company, certify, that to the best of my knowledge:

              1.thereport 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 the
              Company.

         This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
         required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
         Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934, as amended.

         Dated: as of November 14, 2003

         /s/ Derek J. Brent
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Derek J. Brent, Chief Financial Officer
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Matthew J. Silva Attorney General/Carson City

• Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
Robert WOOTEN, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.

No. 17M104.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50815

DARRYLL TAYLOR , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. DUVELZA B. URESTE; DANIEL MCQUARY; MICHELL BIESE; MARIA D. AGREDANO; CHERYL LAWSON; STEVEN R. SWIFT , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CV

- 98

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darryll Taylor, Texas prisoner # 1569309, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). By moving for IFP status in this court, Taylor is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); § 1915(a)(3).

* 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED April 28, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50815 Document: 00512609820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2014No. 13

- 50815

Taylor argues that (1) he is indigent; (2) his claims of constitutional violations have merit and are supported by unspecified controlling caselaw from this court and the Supreme Court; and (3) because he did not receive a report of the magistrate judge recommending the denial of IFP, he was unable to file objections and was deprived of de novo review regarding the denial of
IFP. Although Taylor references generally his civil rights claims, he has
abandoned th e claims by failing to brief them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) ; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Taylor has not shown that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on
th eir merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation s omitted). Taylor ’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed
as frivolous. See Ba ugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Taylor’s complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). This court’s dismissal of this appeal also counts as a strike. See id. Taylor is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL S DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 13-50815 Document: 00512609820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2014
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 quarterly report of American Retirement Villas Properties II, a California Limited Partnership (the Partnership) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Jessee, Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                                                                           
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 17, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/    MARK JESSEE                                                                        
|                   |  |     |  |                                                                                           
|                   |  |     |  | Mark Jessee Chief Financial Officer of ARV Assisted Living, Inc., Managing General Partner
# C_2011305EN.01000602.xml

| 15.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/6

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-525/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 305/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 1315/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
H. R. 3870 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 West 

165th Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Normandia Maldonado Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NORMANDIA MALDONADO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 511 West 165th Street in New York, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Normandia Maldonado Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Fidencio CASTRO-VERDUGO, aka Fidel Castro-Verdugo, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7336.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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