alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020345EN.01023501.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/235 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/235

---

P8_TA(2018)0408

Launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Ireland *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Ireland (11265/2018 — C8-0388/2018 — 2018/0808(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2020/C 345/37)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (11265/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (11265/2018),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0388/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0388/2018),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

| — | having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0344/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0344/2018),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

---
Sha'Ron A. SIMS, Petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 19-7612.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 16, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00065

- CV

Juan Enriquez, Appellant

v.

Cristina Melton Crain, Individually and in her Official Capacity as former Chair of the

Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Brad Livingston, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
Nathaniel Quarterman, Individually and in his Official Capacity as former Director of the Texas Depart ment of Criminal Justice; and John Rupert, Individually and in his Official Capacity as former Warden of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Michael Unit, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on December 21 , 2011

. The Court’s

opinion and judgment dated August 7, 2013 are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s order.

Therefore, the Court affirms the trial cou rt’s order. Because appellant is indigent and unable to

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# Official Journal C 188/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 188 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6417 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 188

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6417 May 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2021/C 188/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2021/C 188/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Dennis CALO, Petitioner v. Annette CHAMBERS-SMITH, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.

No. 19-5673

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
Lena LASHER, Petitioner v. Roger STAVIS, et al.

No. 19-5914

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
SMITH BARNEY ARIZONA MUNICIPALS FUND INC. (the "Fund")

Supplement dated February 10, 1998 to the Prospectus dated September 26, 
1997


The following information supplements the information and to the extent 
inconsistent therewith, supersedes the information set forth in the 
Prospectus under "VALUATION OF SHARES" of the above Fund:

VALUATION OF SHARES

	The Fund's net asset value per share is determined as of the close 
of regular trading on the NYSE, on each day that the NYSE is open, by 
dividing the value of the Fund's net assets attributable to each Class 
by the total number of shares of that Class outstanding.

 	Generally, the Fund's investments are valued at market value or, 
in the absence of a market value with respect to any securities, at fair 
value as determined by or under the direction of the Fund's Board of 
Directors. Certain securities may be valued on the basis of prices 
provided by pricing services approved by the Board of Directors. Short-
term investments that mature in 60 days or less are valued at amortized 
cost whenever the Directors determine that amortized cost is fair value. 
Amortized cost valuation involves valuing an instrument at its cost 
initially and, thereafter, assuming a constant amortization to maturity 
of any discount or premium, regardless of the impact of fluctuating 
interest rates on the market value of the instrument. Further 
information regarding the Fund's valuation policies is contained in the 
SAI.     




FD 01398           2/98
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ANDREW MCMILLAN §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24cv38

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Andrew McMillan, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack

Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the

petition be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 6] is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. A final

judgment shall be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard that must be met in

order to receive a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing

of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);

Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner

is not requited to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he need only demonstrate

Case 1:24-cv-00038-MJT-ZJH Document 7 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 72
that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in

a different manner, or that the questions presented in the petition are worthy of encouragement to

proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate

of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be

considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.

2000).

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is barred by

limitations is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by

petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are

not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not

issue. 

 ____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 26th day of July, 2024.

Case 1:24-cv-00038-MJT-ZJH Document 7 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 73
Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner v. John DOE

No. 19-5887

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petitions for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 120 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 120

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the more than 5,000 
   slaves and free Black persons who fought for independence in the 
                          American Revolution.

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, provides that the 
        location of a commemorative work in Area I, as depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs'',

              

 numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall be deemed to be 
authorized only if a recommendation for that location is approved by law 
not later than 150 calendar days after Congress is notified of the 
recommendation;

Whereas section 2860 of Public Law 112-239 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note) authorized the 
        National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land 
        in Area I or Area II, as depicted on such map, to honor the more than 
        5,000 slaves and free Black persons who fought for American independence 
        in the Revolutionary War; and
Whereas the Administrator of General Services has notified Congress of the 
        Administrator's determination that such memorial should be located in 
        Area I: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the location of a 
commemorative work to honor the more than 5,000 slaves and free Black 
persons who fought in the American Revolution, authorized by section 
2860 of division B of Public Law 112-239 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note), within 
Area I as described on the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas 
Washington, DC and Environs'', 

              

numbered 869/86501 B and dated June 24, 2003, is approved.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.2 

 

October __, 2005 

 

**[Name of Employee]**

**[Address]**

**[Address]**

 

 

Dear __________, 

 

We are pleased to offer you a cash incentive to remain employed with the Company. We are offering you the retention bonus described in this letteragreement because we recognize that you are critical to the success of our future business operations and you have the potential to make a significant impact on our future growth. 

 

In consideration of your continued employment, you will be eligible to receive a retention bonus equal to 150% of yourannual base salary in effect on October 19, 2005 (the “Retention Bonus”). For example, if your annual base salary is $200,000, you would eligible to receive a Retention Bonus in the amount of $300,000. 

 

The Retention Bonus shall be payable in two equal cash payments, the first onOctober 19, 2006 and the second on October 19, 2007, on the condition that you are still employed by the Company through the date of payment; provided that if (i) you are earlier terminated without Cause, or (ii) you resign forGood Reason, as such terms are defined in your Change of Control agreement, the full amount of the bonus then unpaid shall be payable, upon delivery of a full release in satisfactory form to the Company, on the date that is six (6) monthsfollowing the date of termination of employment. 

 

The terms ofthis letter agreement cannot be modified except in a written document signed by a duly authorized officer of the Company and you. The obligations in this letter agreement shall survive, and not be affected by, a Change of Control and shall bebinding on SumTotal and its successors. Nothing in this letter agreement shall modify or affect the terms of your Change of Control agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

If you agree to the terms of this letter agreement, please sign below and return this letter to Donald Fowler at SumTotalSystems. Thank you in advance for your continued service to the Company. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter agreement. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Donald E. Fowler 

Interim CEO and Chair of SumTotal Systems, Inc. 

 

Agreed: 

 

___________________        Date: ____________
Travis Lavoy JENKINS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5759

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Chase MATHENY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6082

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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 Wannigan Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Pickett, 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:



(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: November 14, 2007





/s/ Steven Pickett

Name: Steven Pickett

Title:

Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wannigan Ventures, Inc., and will be retained by Wannigan Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2013063EN.01001502.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-255/11) (1)

1

2013/C 63/26

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
David INGRAHAM, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-6594

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380

In the Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W. Front St., Suite 354

Tyler, Texas 75702

Tel 903 593 8471, Fax 903 593 2193

Appeal: 12-15-00226-CV

From: CauseNg ?f)1/1-0310 f*H ?-

12mCourtof_App^teDistncl

OCT -62015,

lYLERTEXAS

PAM ESTES^CLERK

Richard Thompson (heir in Estate of Wm. McGeorge)

vs.

Blackberry LC (aka Bob Anderson) fax 903 232 1881

Remittance of $195 Appeal Fee and $10 for Motion, under Duress

Defendant/Appellant Richard Thompson hereby remits $195 appeal fee plus $10 for motion as

instructed by Katrina McClenny 9/28/15, but does so under duress as Plaintiff/Appellee Bob

Anderson, lawyer for the Estate of Wm. McGeorge and effectively the lawyer for Thompson,

misrepresented the value of property and caused the loss here appealed. It is impossible for

Anderson to deny his intent to defraud, or for the Twelfth Court of Appeals to sustain Judge

Dulweber. Cost of appeal should be borne by those who forced it, knowing full well suit against

Thompson and others similarly situated was baseless, judgment lacked independent appraisal,

was the product of collusion, and is void by law as an abuse of civil process, inter alia.

Furthermore, this good court will note the mutual malpractice and may discipline accordingly.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that copies of this remittance and memorandum of

duress was served via first class mail upon Bob Anderson 10/2/15

Verification: I hereby swear the forgoing to be true and correct, under penalty of law.

Richard Thompson

10/2/15

(Blackberry - Appeal $195, Motion $10,10-2-15.docx)
Donald Steven REYNOLDS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6197

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2018264EN.01000201.xml

| 26.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8925 — RWA/ZG/HGD JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 264/03)

On 20 July 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8925. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8925. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)
  (1)
    
    the 10-Q 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 10-Q
Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 15, 2008
    
    /s/ CARL KUKKONEN

Carl KukkonenChief Executive OfficerDate: May 15, 2008
    
    /s/ STEPHEN J. MUZI

Stephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTA LEA LIZAMA

- HERNANDEZ ; et al. , Petitioner s ,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 197 Agency No s
. A209

- 840

- 541 A209

- 840

- 542

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023 **
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

. Marta Lea Lizama

- Hernandez and her minor daughter 1 , native s and
citizen s of El Salvador , petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal as abandoned

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 The C lerk will amend the docket to add petition er’s daughter Brita n ny Nallely Romero

- Lizama (A209

- 840

- 524) as a petitioner in this case , in accordance with the p etition for r eview , filed at Docket Entry No. 1 , and the agency decision, filed at Docket Entry No. 8

. 

# FILED

MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 197

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA decision rests solely on the ground that petitioners ab andoned their appeal, and petitioners do not challenge that conclusion in briefing before
this court. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) . This court cannot reach grounds not relied on by the BIA. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v . Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Petitioners ’ claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to provide meaningful review fails because they have not shown error. See Padilla

Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due

process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”). The temporary stay of removal continues in effect as to both petitioners
until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.