alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011298EN.01000601.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg)) — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-69/10) (1)

1

(Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - ‘Decision taken on (the) application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 - Application by a third country national for refugee status - Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection - Application rejected under an accelerated procedure - No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure - Right to effective judicial review)

2011/C 298/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Application by a third country national, without a legal right of residence, for refugee status — Rejection of that application in a national accelerated procedure in the absence of grounds justifying the grant of international protection — Conformity with Community law of national legislation excluding any appeal against the decision to treat the application under the accelerated procedure — Right to effective judicial review

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application — a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
Maria NIEVES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5598.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Francisco SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8087.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Carl R. BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7572.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Barbara DARBY, petitioner, v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 17-7450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Alton DOCHERTY aka Alton Dockherty, petitioner, v. Dennis BUSH, Warden.

No. 16-6582.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
LINKGINE, INC., petitioner, v. VIGLINK, INC., et al.

No. 17-558.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Justin GLOVER, Jr., petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 17-7965.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

*1992Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 99.1



Annual CEO Certification



(Section 303A.12 (a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual)



As the Chief Executive Officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and as required by
Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, I hereby certify that as of the date hereof I am not aware of any violation by the Company of NYSEs Corporate Governance listing standards, other than has been
notified to the Exchange pursuant to Section 303A.12(b) and disclosed on Exhibit H to the Companys Domestic Company Section 303A Annual Written Affirmation.



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                                                         
|Matthew K. Rose Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer May 18, 2006



[This certification is without
qualification.]
Lori Jo SKLAR, petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-5004.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Exhibit 99.2


In connection with the CNB Florida  Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company")  Quarterly
Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ending  June 30,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  (the  "Report"),  I, G.
Thomas  Frankland,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



         1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
              78o(d)); and


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



                                                    /s/ G. Thomas Frankland
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    G. Thomas Frankland
                                                    Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Larry James LANDRY.

No. D-3019.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Larry James Landry, of Seattle, Washington, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred *1459from the practice of law in this Court.
Ryan POWERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V
                             (A Limited Partnership)

                                   Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits, L.P. V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 results of operations of the
     Partnership.



                                                      /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                      Jenny Netzer
                                                      Executive Vice President
                                                      MMA Financial, LLC

                                                      Date:   February 12, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Glen Sebastian BURNS, petitioner, v. Mike OBENLAND, Superintendent, Monroe Correctional Complex.

No. 17-5210.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-61036 and333-89943) pertaining to the InsWeb Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1997Stock Option Plan, Senior Executive Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated March 20, 2007, with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of InsWeb Corporationincluded in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

Sacramento, California

March 28, 2007

----
Exhibit
      32.2 ****




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND18
      U.S.C. 1350,  AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      John
      D. Clagg, Chief Financial Officer of YTB International, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby
      represent, warrant and certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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






/s/
      John D.
      Clagg





Name:
      John D. Clagg Title: Chief Financial Officer Date: November 14,
      2007
David Christopher HESSE, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-1326.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District denied.
Michquel CURINGTON, aka Michael Currington, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5166.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Alan OSTERHOUDT, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5059.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
993.

#### WILSON *v.*COBB.

1. The verdict was not without evidence to support it.

2. Grounds of a motion for a new trial dependent upon facts dehors the record will not be considered, unless approved or certified to be true by the presiding judge.

Distraint, from city court of Leesburg — Judge Long. January *25,*1908.

Submitted March 12,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*H. B. Simmons,*for plaintiff in error. *J. R. Long,*contra.

Powell, J.

The original motion contains only the general grounds; the amendment contains several special grounds. The grounds of the amendment are not verified or approved by the trial judge. The following endorsement, signed by the judge, is not equivalent to an approval: “Bead, considered, and allowed.” *Williams*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*488 (48 S. E. 149); *Sindy*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*202 (47 S. E. 554); *Jackson*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*834 (43 S. E. 255).

*Judgment affirmed.*
Melissa L. BURNETT, petitioner, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et al.

No. 17-8208.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2011080EN.01000901.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/9

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-74/10 P and C-75/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation of a party by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)

2011/C 80/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and N. Khan, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07 EREF v Commission, in which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 declaring that certain sources of finance used by TVO for the construction of a nuclear reactor in Finland (‘Olkiluoto 3 Project’) do not constitute State aid — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

EREF

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeals are dismissed.

| 2. | European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 30, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00701-CV

IN RE MONICA NWOKOCHA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 96662-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 30, 2022, relator Monica Nwokocha 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 K. Randall 

Huffstetler, presiding judge of the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, to 

transfer the underlying proceeding to a district court in Harris County, Texas. 
2

Relator has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also dismiss relator’s motion 

for emergency relief as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Exhibit 32.2

INSWEB CORPORATION    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of InsWeb Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William D. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to InsWeb Corporation, and will be retained by InsWeb Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|/s/WILLIAM D. GRIFFINWilliam D. Griffin
Chief Financial Officer
Dated: March 26, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2963

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andrew Wolters

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: October 04, 2019

Filed: October 11, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Andrew Wolters appeals the district court’s order committing him to the

1

custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and care or treatment under 18

U.S.C. § 4245. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review of the record, including the psychological evaluations of

a mental health professional where Wolters is presently confined for treatment, and

of defense counsel’s independent psychological examiner, this court concludes that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wolters a continuance to

obtain a second independent psychological evaluation. See Vasquez v. Colores, 648

F.3d 648, 652 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). The court ’s section 4245 finding

wassupported by a preponderance ofthe evidence, and was not clearly erroneous. See

18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th

Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Wolters’s pro se arguments offer no basis for relief. 

This court notes thatWolters’s custodians must prepare annualreports concerning his

mental condition and the need for continued commitment. See 18 U.S.C. §

4247(e)(1)(B). 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 

Wolters’s pro se motion to unseal the brief, addendum, and appendix filed in this

matter is granted. 

______________________________

The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11082

Summary Calendar

ROBERT ALEXANDER DUBOSE,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

GILBERT GOMEZ, Correctional Officer II, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

ROBERTO TARIN, Lieutenant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

OLIVER VASQUEZ, Sergeant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

NFN ALONZO, Sergeant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

NFN BERTERSON, Correctional Officer, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

BETTERTON STEVEN,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CV-193

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 15-11082

2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert DuBose, Texas prisoner # 01880528, sued five correctional officers alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from a use of force. The district 

court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of qualified 

immunity and the absence of any genuine issue of material fact that any defendant had violated DuBose’s Eighth Amendment rights. DuBose appeals.

We review a summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Mason v. Lafayette 

City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 806 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2015). To preserve an 

issue for review, the appellant must adequately brief it and “engage the issue 

on the basis of binding precedent.” See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 

433, 446–47 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2010); see also FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). DuBose’s 

perfunctory counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction, see Beasley 

v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986), and it fails to meet this court’s 

standards for appellate briefing and fails properly to raise any issue for appeal. 

See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446–47.

AFFIRMED.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<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>                        1,754,994
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,763
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,767,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  12,517
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>