alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2005306EN.01002601.xml

| 24.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 306/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 306/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 98/2005

of 8 July 2005

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 60/2005 of 29 April 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 60/2005 of 29 April 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2232/2004 of 23 December 2004 amending Annexes I, II and III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards altrenogest, beclomethasone dipropionate, cloprostenol, r-cloprostenol, sorbitan sesquioleate and toltrazuril (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2232/2004 of 23 December 2004 amending Annexes I, II and III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards altrenogest, beclomethasone dipropionate, cloprostenol, r-cloprostenol, sorbitan sesquioleate and toltrazuril (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 14 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32004 R 2232: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2232/2004 of 23 December 2004 (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 71).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32004 R 2232: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2232/2004 of 23 December 2004 (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 71).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 2232/2004 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 9 July 2005, 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, 8 July 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 239, 15.9.2005, p. 40.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 71.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
BANNER HEALTH, et al., petitioners, v. Alex M. AZAR, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

No. 17-1023.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
S eptember 27, 2021
N o. 04-21-00307- CV
A pril Marie FULLER , Billy Don Huston, Cindy Huston, James Record, Mark Alan Record, and Robert Dales Moores, Appellants

v. M ALTSBERGER/STOREY RANCH, LLC , Maltsberger/Storey Ranch Lands, LLC, Storey Minerals, Ltd., and Rene R. Barrientos, Ltd., Appellees
F rom the 218th Judicial Distric t Court , La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-06-00106- CVL -C The Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding 

### ORDER
A ppellants’ second motion for extension of time to file their brief is GRANTED IN PART. It is ORDERED that appellants’ brief is due on or before October 25, 2021. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

________________________ _________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2 7 th day of September, 2021.

__________ _________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
Hicham AZKOUR, petitioner, v. LITTLE REST TWELVE, INC.

No. 16-322.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner, v. MURPHY OIL USA, INC., et al.

No. 16-307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Robert Adrian TRUJILLO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8092.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011186EN.01000601.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — European Communities v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-137/10) (1)

1

(Articles 207(2) EC and 282 EC - Representation of the European Communities before the national courts - Powers conferred on the Commission - Delegation of the power of representation to other Community institutions - Conditions)

2011/C 186/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Communities

Applicant:

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 282 EC and the first subparagraph of 207(2) EC — Conditions for the Commission to delegate to another institution the powers to represent the Community in legal proceedings — Validity of the mandate in the absence of an appointment by name of the natural person having authority to represent the institution thus empowered — Jurisdiction of the national court to give judgment on the matter — Doubts relating to the validity of the representation of the Council in legal proceedings by its Deputy Secretary-General, who is responsible for the running of the General Secretariat — Respect of the principle of the organisational autonomy of the institutions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The mandate by which the European Commission delegated to another Community institution, in a dispute concerning the latter, the power accruing to the Commission under Article 282 EC to represent the European Communities before a national court was validly granted, regardless of whether that mandate specified by name a natural person as having authority to represent the institution thus empowered. In such cases, both the institution thus empowered and the natural person — if one were specified — were entitled to authorise a lawyer to represent the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
Mark WHITE, petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.

No. 17-1122.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Richard TRAHAN, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7587.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

December 6, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00693-CR

IN RE TODD W. ALTSCHUL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23,557-XY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 26, 2022, relator Todd W. Altschul 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, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Justin R. 

Gilbert, presiding judge of the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, to issue the 

writ of habeas corpus and rule on the merits of his application for writ of habeas 

corpus. 
2

Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive 

means to challenge a final felony conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; Bd. 

of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 

481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals has 

exclusive jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony 

conviction. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Intermediate appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over 

post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 

11.07; In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, 

orig. proceeding). To complain about any action or inaction of the convicting court, 

relator may seek mandamus relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See 

Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196‒97. 

Relator seeks post-conviction habeas relief from the trial court that entered a 

judgment of conviction on a felony charge. In his mandamus petition in our court, 

relator complains that the convicting trial court has not timely issued the writ or ruled 

on the application for the writ. We lack jurisdiction over relator’s request. 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
George LOWE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-9269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

ofNiku Corporation: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference inthe registration statements (Nos. 333-31318, 333-44988, 333-50184, 333-54404, 333-56402, 333-69196, 333-85918, 333-90224, 333-90554, 333-102891, 333-104860 and 333-111739) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of Niku Corporation of our report dated February 20,2004, except as to Note 11 which is as of April 4, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Niku Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensiveincome(loss), stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2004, and the related schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 2004, Annual Report on Form 10-K of NikuCorporation. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

April 14, 2004
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South

Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3138

___________

John M. Jeffords, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

Social Security; Brent Jackson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

Filed: October 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John M. Jeffords appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the District of South Dakota affirming the denial of his request that his disabled

child’s benefits be paid directly to him, not through a representative payee. For

reversal, Jeffords asserts that he is able to manage his benefit payments because his
-2-

disability has healed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) will make direct payments to a

beneficiary if the beneficiary shows that he is mentally and physically able to manage,

or direct the management of, benefit payments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.655 (2005). To

support a request for direct payment, a beneficiary may provide a physician’s

statement or other evidence, showing that the beneficiary is able to manage or direct

the management of his funds. See id. 

Other than Jeffords’s unsupported assertions, we find no evidence in the record

that Jeffords is mentally and physically able to manage his benefit payments. Rather,

the evidence reflects the opposite: for example, his treating physician refused to

certify that Jeffords could manage his own affairs; his representative payee did not

consider Jeffords capable of managing his affairs because he desired to spend more

money than he had and frequently pawned items; he accrued credit card debt and had

two credit cards cancelled; and he threatened SSA employees and was arrested for an

encounter with a previous representative payee. Thus, we conclude the

Administrative Law Judge’s decision to deny Jeffords’s request for direct payment

is supported by substantial evidence. See Neal v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 685, 688 (8th

Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                               11,127,438
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     18,710,156
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       18,710,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   498,661
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         18,710,156
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,004,229
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,598,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         405,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     405,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            405,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                27.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                27.50
        

</TABLE>
Samuel GRANILLO-HERRERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9633.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 233 

Recognizing the thousands of Freemasons in every State in the Nation and 

honoring them for their many contributions to the Nation throughout 

its history. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SKELTON) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the thousands of Freemasons in every State 

in the Nation and honoring them for their many contributions to the Nation throughout its history. 

Whereas Freemasons, whose long lineage extends back to before the Nation’s founding, have set an example of high 

moral standards and charity for all people; 

Whereas the Founding Fathers of this great Nation and signers of the Constitution, most of whom were Freemasons, 

provided a well-rounded basis for developing themselves 

and others into valuable citizens of the United States; 

Whereas members of the Masonic Fraternity, both individually and as an organization, continue to make invaluable 

charitable contributions of service to the United States; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 233 IH 

Whereas the Masonic Fraternity continues to provide for the 

charitable relief and education of the citizens of the 

United States; 

Whereas the Masonic Fraternity is deserving of formal recognition of their long history of care-giving for the citizenry and their example of high moral standards; and 

Whereas Freemasons have always revered and celebrated St. 

John’s Day, June 24th, as dedicated to their patron 

saints: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the thousands of Freemasons in every State in the 

3 Nation and honors them for their many contributions to 

4 the Nation throughout its history. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
CERTIFICATIONS

In  connection  with the Report of International Commercial Television Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-KSB/A  for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Kelvin  Claney,  President  and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Karl
Redekopp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  and  belief:

1.   the Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

             Date: March  8,  2007
                                       Signed:  /s/ Kelvin Claney
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              President and Chief Executive
                                              Officer

                                       Signed:  s/ Karl Redekopp
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Gregory Payne DAVIDSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-375.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-811-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule S-2 Interim ASA 
Tracker to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220405-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 6, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07764 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Grace MAKAU, petitioner, v. Louise MEYER, Judge, District Court of North Carolina, Orange County, et al.

No. 17-6012.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009055EN.01004502.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/45

---

Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-3/09)

(2009/C 55/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008)6015 final, notified to the Italian Republic on 22 October 2008 by note of 22 October 2008 No SG-Greffe (2008) D/206436. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008)6015 final, notified to the Italian Republic on 22 October 2008 by note of 22 October 2008 No SG-Greffe (2008) D/206436.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that contested in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission.

Cantiere Navale De Poli

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.

---