alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 11992M/PRO/IRL

**Treaty on European Union - Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities***Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0094*

 PROTOCOL annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities  

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, 

 HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities:

  Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland.
Mark A. BECKHAM, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-208

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

PATRICIA S. (PLISCO) BRODERSEN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1246-97-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JULY 7, 1998 

CHARLES J. PLISCO, JR. 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

Thomas R. McNamara, Judge Designate 

 Lloyd F. Sammons (Sammons & Smith, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Daniel G. Dannenbaum (The Lewis Law Firm, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Patricia S. Brodersen appeals the denial of her motion to 

"enforce" a foreign decree in proceedings initiated by Charles J. 

Plisco, Jr., seeking modification of custody. We affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 I. 

 BACKGROUND 

 On September 20, 1994, an Iowa court granted Ms. Brodersen 

and Mr. Plisco a divorce (Iowa Decree). The Iowa Decree awarded 

the parties joint legal custody of their two minor children, and 

granted primary physical care to Ms. Brodersen. The Iowa Decree 

incorporated a stipulation permitting Ms. Brodersen "to relocate 

her and the children's primary residence." 

 In 1995, the parties moved separately to Virginia. On 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 

July 9, 1996, Mr. Plisco petitioned the juvenile and domestic 

relations court to modify custody based upon Ms. Brodersen's 

remarriage and her impending move to New Mexico. The parties 

registered the Iowa Decree in Prince William County and the City 

of Alexandria. 

 On January 6, 1997, apparently to forestall hearing on the 

custody petition, Ms. Brodersen moved the juvenile and domestic 

relations court to "enforce" the Iowa Decree. The juvenile and 

domestic relations court denied her motion, and Ms. Brodersen 

appealed that decision to the trial court.1

 By order entered 

May 30, 1997, the trial court denied the appeal and remanded the 

matter to the juvenile and domestic relations court. 

 II. 

 APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

 Contrary to Ms. Brodersen's assertions, the trial court did 

not deny "full faith and credit" to the Iowa Decree. It did not 

hold that the Iowa Decree was invalid or without application. 

Rather, the trial court declined to "enforce" the decree, blindly 

and prospectively, in bar of a proper custody review. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and this case 

is remanded to it with direction to remand the petition for 

custody to the juvenile and domestic relations court with 

 1Mr. Plisco filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Brodersen's 

appeal, contending that the juvenile and domestic relations court 

had not entered a final, appealable order. See Code § 16.1-296. 

 The circuit court denied his motion and that decision is not 

before us on appeal. 
- 3 - 

direction to determine the merits of that petition, affording 

full faith and credit to the Iowa Decree. 

 Affirmed and remanded.
Estelle STEIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-393

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, W. Anderson Geater, Jr., certify that:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Origen Financial, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(g)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   /s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.
    
    
    
    Dated: May 12, 2008W. Anderson Geater, Jr.,Chief Financial Officer of Origen Financial, Inc.
 36
The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0257n.06

Filed: May 15, 2008

No. 07-4037

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JAMES H. BURKS, IV

Plaintiff-Appellant,

On Appeal from the 

v. United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Ohio

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________

Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Mr. James H. Burks, IV appeals the district court’s July 2, 2007 decision

denying its motion for sanctions against Yellow Transportation, Inc. Mr. Burks asserts that the

district court abused its discretion by refusing to sanction Yellow Transportation for including a

misleading and inaccurate statement of law, and a few misleading statements of fact in its reply brief

filed in support of its motion for summary judgment.

The district court's opinion carefully analyzed the purported inaccurate and misleading

statements in Yellow Transportation’s brief and concluded that, while Yellow Transportation’s

counsel should “take better care in the future to avoid [] overstatements,” the complained-of

statements were sufficiently supported by evidence and not significantly misleading. We have

carefully read the district court’s opinion, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, and we find that
it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiff sanctions against the defendant. We therefore

AFFIRM the district court's denial of sanctions for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough                    |   | May 10, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                         |   | May 10, 2011 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |

----
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 96 

Congratulating the Army Dental Corps on its 100th anniversary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2011 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

MARCH 15, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Army Dental Corps on its 100th 

anniversary. 

Whereas, on March 3, 1911, Congress was the first to officially recognize dentistry as a distinct profession by establishing an Army Dental Service with commissioned officers, a seminal event for dentistry as well as for military history; 

Whereas dental health is a critical component of military 

medical readiness; 

Whereas, throughout history, the Army Dental Corps has 

preserved the strength of the Army by minimizing risk 

for and expediting treatment of dental emergencies; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 96 ATS 

Whereas the Army Dental Corps works continuously to improve the oral health of soldiers and their families by 

supporting individual and community prevention initiatives, good oral hygiene practices, and evidence-based 

treatment; 

Whereas the Army Dental Corps endeavors to improve oral 

health world-wide by participating in the full spectrum of 

military and peacekeeping operations, serving as dental 

ambassadors through care rendered to United States and 

coalition military personnel during combat operations, 

and local national citizens in humanitarian operations; 

Whereas the Army Dental Corps, in collaboration with national and international dental organizations, promotes 

synergy among all dental professionals; 

Whereas the Army Dental Corps supports the mission of the 

Federal dental research program, and endorses improved 

dental technologies and therapies through research and 

adherence to sound scientific principles; and 

Whereas the Army Dental Corps recognizes the importance 

of lifelong pursuit of continuing dental education, and 

executes this mission through specialty dental education 

and postgraduate residencies and fellowships for its members: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Army Dental Corps on its 

3 100th anniversary; 

4 (2) commends the Army Dental Corps for its 

5 work to improve the dental readiness of the Army, 

6 and the oral health of soldiers and their families; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 96 ATS 

1 (3) recognizes the thousands of dentists who 

2 have served in the Army Dental Corps over the last 

3 100 years, providing dental care to millions of mem4 bers of the Armed Forces and their families; and 

5 (4) commends the Army Dental Corps for its 

6 efforts to keep America’s soldiers healthy and the 

7 best fighting force in the world. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1338/2004

of 22 July 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such skimmed-milk powder

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 26(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999, the date of ‘1 July 2002’ is replaced by the date ‘1 October 2002’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 340, 31.12.1999, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1079/2004 (OJ L 203, 8.6.2004, p. 13).

----
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Salomon Brothers Variable Series Funds Inc

                                                            (2)


               Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Salomon Brothers Variable Series Funds Inc


In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of Salomon Brothers Variable Capital Fund and
Salomon Brothers Variable Small Cap Growth Fund (two of the
portfolios constituting Salomon Brothers Variable Series Funds
Inc, hereafter referred to as the Fund) for the year ended
December 31, 2002, we considered their internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to
comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes
in conditions or that the effectiveness of their design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by
error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to
the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we
noted no matters involving internal control and its operation,
including controls for safeguarding securities, that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of
December 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be
and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 14, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 BCTC V Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|             |  |                            
|------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date:        |  |                            
|May 15, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|             |  |                            
|             |  | John P. Manning            
|             |  | Principal Executive Officer
|             |  |                            
|             |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK

FINANCIALCONTENT, INC.

         FinancialContent,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Corporation"),
certifies that pursuant to the authority contained in Article IV of its Articles
of  Incorporation,  and in  accordance  with the provision of Section 151 of the
Delaware General Corporate Law, its Board of Directors has adopted the following
resolution creating a series of its $0.001 par Preferred Stock:

         RESOLVED,  that,  pursuant  to  authority  conferred  upon the Board of
Directors  by the Articles of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation,  the Board of
Directors  hereby  authorizes the issuance of a Series D Preferred  Stock of the
Corporation  and hereby  designates,  pursuant  to Section  151 of the  Delaware
General  Corporate Law, the rights,  preferences,  privileges,  restrictions and
other matters relating to such Series D Preferred Stock as follows:

1.       Designation  and  Amount.   Four  Million  (4,000,000)  shares  of  the
         Corporation's  authorized  preferred stock are hereby designated as the
         Series D Preferred Stock (the "Series D Preferred Stock").
2.       Liquidation,   Dissolution   or  Winding   Up.  In  the  event  of  any
         liquidation,   dissolution  or  winding  up,   including  a  merger  or
         acquisition of the Corporation ("Liquidating Event"), whether voluntary
         or involuntary, holders of each share of Series D Preferred Stock shall
         not be entitled to be paid out of the assets or surplus funds.
3.       Voting Power. Each holder of Series D Preferred Stock shall be entitled
         to vote on all matters that the holders of Common Stock vote upon.  The
         holders of the Series D  Preferred  Stock and Common  Stock  shall vote
         together as a single class on all such  matters.  On all such  matters,
         the  holders of the Series D Preferred  Shares  shall be entitled to 10
         votes of Common Stock for each share of Series D Preferred Stock voted.
4.       Conversion  Rights.  The holders of the Series D Preferred  Stock shall
         have no conversion rights.

         Authorized signature:

         Dated:  November 11, 2003
                ---------------------------


         /S/ WING YU
         ----------------------------------
         Wing Yu
         Chief Executive Officer
         FinancialContent, Inc.
Bekir BULUC, aka Celebi Buluc, aka Bekir Celibi, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6353

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Andre JENKINS, Petitioner v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO

No. 19-540

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,426-01

EX PARTE STEVEN P CHERRY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2015CR6408-W1 IN THE 226TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual felon. The Fourth Court of

Appeals dismissed Applicant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. Cherry v. State, No. 04-16-00524-

CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 1, 2017).

Applicant’s direct appeal was dismissed because no notice of appeal was timely filed.

Applicant filed this habeas application requesting a late appeal, and the trial court entered an order

designating issues. The habeas record, however, has no findings resolving the disputed issues. We
2

remand the habeas application to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation,

resolve the disputed issues, and enter findings.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall be forwarded

to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from

this Court. 

Filed: November 1, 2017

Do not publish