alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010080EN.01001701.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/17

---

Action brought on 21 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-35/10)

2010/C 80/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive;

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC lapsed on 30 April 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.

1

---
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 23, 2016 522103

________________________________ In the Matter of KEVIN THOMPSON, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 3, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Kevin Thompson, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered September 30, 2015, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an August 2014 determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release and ordering his next appearance in 15 months. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board in November 2015 and was again denied parole release. As a result, the appeal is now moot and must be dismissed (see Matter of Franko v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 126 AD3d 1193, 1193-2- 522103

[2015]). Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
# C_2011232EN.01002304.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur — Belgium) — Rémi Paquot (C-622/10), Adrien Daxhelet (Case C-623/10) v État Belge — SPF Finances

(Joined Cases C-622/10 and 623/10) (1)

(2011/C 232/39)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3850 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exempt assistance 

provided by political parties to the campaigns of candidates who are 

affiliated with such parties for secure information communications technology or cybersecurity products or services from the limitations on 

the amount of coordinated expenditures parties may make in connection 

with the campaigns of such candidates, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Mr. SARBANES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

exempt assistance provided by political parties to the 

campaigns of candidates who are affiliated with such 

parties for secure information communications technology 

or cybersecurity products or services from the limitations 

on the amount of coordinated expenditures parties may 

make in connection with the campaigns of such candidates, and for other purposes. 

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


dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3850 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Creating Candidate 

3 Capacity to Protect Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CYBERSECURITY ASSISTANCE 

5 FROM LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF COORDI6 NATED POLITICAL PARTY EXPENDITURES. 

7 (a) EXEMPTION.—Section 315(d)(5) of the Federal 

8 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(5)) 

9 is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘(5)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5)(A)’’; 

11 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert12 ing ‘‘, or to expenditures (whether provided as funds 

13 or provided as in-kind services) for secure informa14 tion communications technology or for a cybersecu15 rity product or service.’’; and 

16 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub17 paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(B) In subparagraph (A)— 

19 ‘‘(i) the term ‘secure information communica20 tions technology’ means a commercial-off-the-shelf 

21 computing device which has been configured to re22 strict unauthorized access and uses publicly available 

23 baseline configurations; and 

24 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘cybersecurity product or service’ 

25 means a product or service which helps an organiza26 tion to achieve the set of standards, guidelines, best 


dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3850 IH

1 practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes 

2 to cost-effectively identify, detect, protect, respond 

3 to, and recover from cyber risks as developed by the 

4 National Institute of Standards and Technology pur5 suant to subsections (c)(15) and (e) of section 2 of 

6 the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

7 Act (15 U.S.C. 272).’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to expenditures 

10 made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BILLS
Karl COTTON, aka Karl Cornelius-Cotton, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF the UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-7327.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Willie Lindsey SYLVESTER, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8086.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
ex_115925.htm


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 2 to the Executive Employment Agreement (“Amendment Agreement”) is entered into as of June 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) and Randall G. Smith (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2004 (“Agreement”) which was subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement on March 14, 2017 (“Amendment No.1” and collectively with the Agreement, the “Employment Agreement”), and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as described herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, which are incorporated in this Amendment Agreement as if fully set forth below, and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Section 3(e) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows (i) deleting the entire paragraph and replacing said paragraph to read as follows: "The Executive shall also be entitled to severance pay equal to twelve (12) months' full-time salary and benefits (greater than or equal to the amount earned in the year 2017), regardless of whether Executive is working full-time at the time of severance, in the event of the termination by the Company for any reason other than commission of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude relating to services provided to the Company, or termination by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 2(c). Options which have vested prior to the date of termination shall remain exercisable during the severance period. Unvested options shall terminate in accordance with the terms of the respective Stock Option Agreements."

			



 


	 	
			2.

				
			Except as expressly provided in this Second Amendment Agreement, other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as provided therein. To the extent that any of the terms or conditions contained in this Second Amendment Agreement may contradict or conflict with any of the terms or conditions of the Employment Agreement, it is expressly understood and agreed that the terms of this Second Amendment Agreement shall take precedence and supersede the Employment Agreement.

			



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment Agreement as of the date set forth in the first paragraph above.


 


          OmniComm Systems, Inc.               


 


 


          By: /s/ Cornelis F. Wit                    


       Cornelis F. Wit, Executive Chairman


 


 


 


 


Executive


 


 


          /s/ Randall G. Smith          


Randall G. Smith
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 18, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00673-CV

IN RE MESA IRREVOCABLE TRUST, JUSTIN COX, SPECIAL 

TRUSTEE AND JOSHUA COTTLE, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 202262317

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Thursday, September 12, 2024, relators Mesa Irrevocable Trust, Justin 

Cox, Special Trustee, and Joshua Cottle filed a petition for writ of mandamus in 

this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, 
2

presiding judge of the 133rd District Court of Harris County, to vacate the trial 

court’s January 29, 2024 “Order on Defendant Bryan Cooper’s Verified Partially 

Agreed Emergency Motion for Temporary Seal and Motion for Sanctions.”

Relators have not demonstrated they are entitled to mandamus relief. We 

deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Joshua David LAMBERT, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 17-8033.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3675 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3675

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require a review of Department of Homeland Security trusted traveler 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Trusted Traveler Reconsideration and 
Restoration Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of 
Department of Homeland Security trusted traveler programs. Such review 
shall examine the following:
            (1) The extent to which the Department of Homeland Security 
        tracks data and monitors trends related to trusted traveler 
        programs, including root causes for identity-matching errors 
        resulting in an individual's enrollment in a trusted traveler 
        program being reinstated.
            (2) Whether the Department coordinates with the heads of 
        other relevant Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial 
        entities regarding redress procedures for disqualifying 
        offenses not covered by the Department's own redress processes 
        but which offenses impact an individual's enrollment in a 
        trusted traveler program.
            (3) How the Department may improve individuals' access to 
        reconsideration procedures regarding a disqualifying offense 
        for enrollment in a trusted traveler program that requires the 
        involvement of any other Federal, State, local, Tribal, or 
        territorial entity.
            (4) The extent to which travelers are informed about 
        reconsideration procedures regarding enrollment in a trusted 
        traveler program.

SEC. 3. ENROLLMENT REDRESS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall, with respect to an individual whose enrollment 
in a trusted traveler program was revoked in error extend by an amount 
of time equal to the period of revocation the period of active 
enrollment in such a program upon re-enrollment in such a program by 
such an individual.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3675

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require a review of Department of Homeland Security trusted traveler 
                   programs, and for other purposes.
```
# C_2011370EN.01001102.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Republic of Austria v Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GesmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics, European Commission

(Case C-47/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Articles 87 EC and 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Statement of reasons for judgments - Burden of proof - Measures of organisation of procedure before the General Court - Articles 64 and 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

2011/C 370/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent, Núñez Müller, J. Dammann, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics (represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by V. Kreuschitz and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission (T-375/04), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision C(2004) 2037 final of 30 June 2004 in relation to State aid NN 34A/00 concerning the quality programmes and quality labels ‘AAMA Biozeichen’ and ‘AMA Gütesiegel’ in Austria (OJ 2005 C 105, p. 30) — Erroneous interpretation of the expression ‘Adirectly and individually concerned’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU in that the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was obliged to initiate the procedure laid down by that provision — Infringement of the rules concerning the burden of proof — Insufficient reasons stated for the judgment under appeal — Lack of necessary inquiry measures.

Scheucher-Fleisch and Others

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the additional appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the additional appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
# C_2012025EN.01001002.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank, Haarlem — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10) X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)

(Joined Cases C-319/10 and C-320/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Tariff classification - Boneless, frozen and salted chicken meat - Validity and interpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 535/94, 1832/2002, 1871/2003, 2344/2003 and 1810/2004 - Additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects)

(2012/C 25/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank, Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-319/10), X BV (C-320/10)

Defendants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38) — Boneless, frozen, salted chicken cuts — Tariff classification

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the declarations for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ were made before 27 September 2005, it is not possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), adopting a report by the WTO appellate body (WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R) and two reports by a special WTO group (WT/DS269/R and WT/DS286/R), as amended by the appellate body, neither in the context of interpretation of the additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, nor in the context of assessment of the validity of that additional note.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

---
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2652

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Antonio Triplett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 8, 2007

Filed: July 23, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Triplett appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion for return

of seized property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Because

Triplett’s property was seized in September 2000, his action was subject to the

provisions of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Pub. L. No.

106-185, 114 Stat. 202, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 983, which applies to forfeiture

actions initiated after August 23, 2000. See Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417

F.3d 1189, 1195 (11th Cir. 2005). Under CAFRA, a person who does not receive
-2-

notice in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture may move to set aside the forfeiture, but such

motion must be filed within 5 years after the date of final publication of the seizure

notice, and is the exclusive remedy to set aside a declaration of forfeiture. See 18

U.S.C. § 983(e). Triplett’s action, filed more than 5 years after the date of final

publication in the Wall Street Journal on November 20, 2000, is time-barred. See 18

U.S.C. § 983(e)(3). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________