alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BANCA UBAE, S.P.A., Petitioner, v. Deborah D. PETERSON, et al.

No. 17-1530

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-___ (S. 1790).
WILLIAMS v. BELL.

No. 86P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2005.

Edmund L. Gaines, Statesville, Christopher D. Mauriello, Salisbury, for Tonya Williams, et al.

Stephen W. Coles, Lexington, for American Bass Fishing.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of February 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Response:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 7th day of March 2005. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of March 2005."
# L_2016116EN.01003901.xml

| 30.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 116/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/39

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/446 of 23 March 2016 amending and extending Council Decision 2013/34/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 78 of 24 March 2016
  )

On page 75, Article 1, point (2):

for:

‘“2.   The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUTM Mali for the period from 19 May 2016 to 18 May 2018 shall be EUR 33 400 000. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/528 (*) shall be 60 % and the percentage for commitment referred to in Article 34(3) of that Decision shall be 10 %.”’,

read:

‘“2.   The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUTM Mali for the period from 19 May 2016 to 18 May 2018 shall be EUR 33 400 000. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/528 (*) shall be 10 % and the percentage for commitment referred to in Article 34(3) of that Decision shall be 60 %.”’.

---
# Official Journal L 28/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.028.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 28 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5531 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.028.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 28

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5531 January 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 64/2012 of 23 January 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) (1) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2012 of 24 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards gear shift indicators and amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) | 24 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 64/2012 of 23 January 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) (1)

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2012 of 24 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards gear shift indicators and amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

24

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Page C. KEEL, Jr. v. PRIVATE BUSINESS, INC.

No. 253P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Vaiden Kendrick, Amie Sloane, for Private Business, Inc.

Andrew McVey, Asheboro, for Page C. Keel, Jr.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of May 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
EXHIBIT 10


                                   CERTIFICATE



                  Andrew Dixey, Chief Executive Officer and the equivalent of
the chief financial officer of Professional Staff plc, does hereby certify that
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002 of
Professional Staff plc fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
annual report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Professional Staff plc.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been executed on this
31st day of July, 2002.





                                          /s/Andrew Dixey
                                          --------------------------
                                          Name: Andrew Dixey
STATE v. Ricky DOTSON.

No. 126P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, William David McFadyen, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of February 2005 by Defendant for "Application and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2005."
Exhibit 10.3

FORM OF NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION NOTICE  FOR NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

[RECIPIENT
NAME]
[RECIPIENT ADDRESS]

This
Option Notice (the "Notice") dated as of [GRANT DATE] (the "Grant Date") is being sent to you by Virgin Media Inc., including any successor company
(the "Company"). As you are presently serving as a director of Virgin Media Inc. or one of its subsidiary corporations, in recognition of your services and pursuant to the Virgin
Media Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan the Company has granted you the Option provided for in this Notice. The Option is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, which is
incorporated herein by reference, and defined terms used but not defined in this Notice shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

1.Grant of Option.The Company hereby irrevocably grants to you, as of the Grant Date,
an option to purchase up to [NUMBER] shares of the Company's common stock at a price of $[EXERCISE PRICE] per share (the "Option"). The Option is not
intended to qualify as an Incentive Stock Option under U.S. tax laws or as an approved Option under U.K. tax laws.

2.Vesting.This Option shall vest [TERMS OF VESTING].

3.Exercise Period.This Option shall stop vesting immediately upon the termination of
your services as a director of the Company and any portion of the Option that is not vested at the time of such termination shall immediately be forfeited and cancelled. Your right to exercise that
portion of the Option that is vested at the time of such termination shall terminate on the earlier of the following dates: (a) three months after the discontinuance of your services as a
director of the Company other than for Cause; (b) one year after your termination resulting from your retirement, disability or death;
(c) the date on which your services are terminated for Cause; or (d) [FINAL MATURITY DATE].

4.Manner of Exercise.The Option may be exercised by delivery to the Company of a
notice in the form attached signed by the person entitled to exercise the Option, specifying the number of shares which such person wishes to purchase, together with a certified or bank check or cash
(or such other manner of payment as permitted by the Plan) for the aggregate option price for that number of shares and any required withholding (including a payment sufficient to indemnify the
Company or any subsidiary of the Company in full against any and all liability to account for any tax or duty payable and arising by reason of the exercise of the Option).

5.Transferability.Neither the Option nor any interest in the Option may be transferred
other than by will or the laws of descent or distribution and the Option may be exercised during your lifetime only by you or your guardian or legal representative.

| |  | VIRGIN MEDIA INC.
| |  | -----------------
| |  | By:              
| |  | Name:            
| |  | Title:           

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,609,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,705,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,491,059
<PP&E>                                      13,237,501
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,942,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,696,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,194,350
<BONDS>                                      8,196,641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,496,937
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,696,395
<SALES>                                     27,696,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,696,395
<CGS>                                       17,096,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,760,307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (131,569)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             244,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,445,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,039,976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,405,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,202,997
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7318

ROBERT HOLLAND KOON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY CLARK; JORDAN WILLIAMS; S.C.D.C.; NURSE LYNCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:18-cv-01584-DCN-TER)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Koon’s motions for temporary 

restraining orders. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 

(1949). The order Koon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps.,

473 U.S. 1301, 1303-05 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 

1973) (per curiam). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

deny Koon’s pending motion, which seeks to expedite the decision, to order the district 

court to place the case in abeyance, to order the district court to deliver the record to the 

Supreme Court, and to send him copies of filed documents. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               35
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       518
<ALLOWANCES>                                          5
<INVENTORY>                                         488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,095
<PP&E>                                            2,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                      939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               667
<BONDS>                                           1,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              1
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,108
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,423
<CGS>                                             1,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (40)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     300
<INCOME-TAX>                                        131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 169
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      2.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      2.27
        

</TABLE>
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017017DE.01005202.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.1.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 17/52 |

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2016/27 der Kommission vom 13. Januar 2016 zur Änderung der Anhänge III und IV der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 999/2001 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates mit Vorschriften zur Verhütung, Kontrolle und Tilgung bestimmter transmissibler spongiformer Enzephalopathien

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 9 vom 14. Januar 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_009_R_TOC)
)

Seite 7, Artikel 3 zur Änderung von Anhang IV Kapitel V Abschnitt E der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 999/2001 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „a) | das verarbeitete Nichtwiederkäuer-Protein stammt aus Verarbeitungsanlagen, in denen ausschließlich tierische Nebenprodukte von Nichtwiederkäuern verarbeitet werden, die von Schlachthöfen und Zerlegungsbetrieben gemäß Kapitel IV Abschnitt D Buchstabe a bezogen werden oder die aus zugelassenen Verarbeitungsanlagen stammen, die in den öffentlich zugänglichen Listen gemäß Kapitel V Abschnitt A Buchstabe d verzeichnet sind;“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „a) | das verarbeitete Nichtwiederkäuer-Protein stammt aus Verarbeitungsanlagen, in denen ausschließlich tierische Nebenprodukte von Nichtwiederkäuern verarbeitet werden, die von Schlachthöfen und Zerlegungsbetrieben gemäß Kapitel IV Abschnitt D Buchstabe a bezogen werden, oder stammt aus zugelassenen Verarbeitungsanlagen, die in den öffentlich zugänglichen Listen gemäß Kapitel V Abschnitt A Buchstabe d verzeichnet sind;“. |

---
[Cite as State v. Rivas, 2015-Ohio-55.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2014-04-088 

: D E C I S I O N

 - vs - 1/12/2015 

: 

 

ERIC GONZALEZ RIVAS, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2013-08-1291 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

John T. Willard, P.O. Box 35, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Eric Gonzalez Rivas, has filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 
Butler CA2014-04-088

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," 

Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently 

to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement 

of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 478 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 478

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2007

 Mr. Chandler (for himself and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 101 
Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018108DE.01003801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.4.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 108/38 |

---

Berichtigung des Durchführungsbeschlusses (EU) 2016/1032 der Kommission vom 13. Juni 2016 über Schlussfolgerungen zu den besten verfügbaren Techniken (BVT) gemäß der Richtlinie 2010/75/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates für die Nichteisenmetallindustrie

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 174 vom 30. Juni 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_174_R_TOC)
)

Seite 50, Anhang, Nummer 1.2.1 „Sekundärrohstoffe“, Einleitungssatz:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „BVT 20. | Die BVT zur Steigerung der Rückgewinnung von Sekundärrohstoffen aus Schrott besteht darin, nichtmetallische Komponenten durch Anwendung einer oder einer Kombination der folgenden Techniken von anderen Metallen als Kupfer zu trennen.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „BVT 20. | Die BVT zur Steigerung der Rückgewinnung von Sekundärrohstoffen aus Schrott besteht darin, nichtmetallische Komponenten und Nichtkupfermetalle durch Anwendung einer oder einer Kombination der folgenden Techniken abzutrennen.“ |

---
Order entered December 19, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-18-01503-CV

IN RE JEROME JOHNSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291s t Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH



### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 95-20966

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARNOLD JOSEPH FREDDIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CR-125-1)

August 30, 1996 

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnold Joseph Freddie appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Freddie

argues that his guilty-plea conviction should be vacated because

there is not a sufficient factual basis for his plea in view of the
-2-

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term “use” in § 924(c) in

Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 L. Ed.

2d 472 (1995). Bailey redefined the term “use” of a firearm under

§ 924(c), but had no effect on our prior precedent regarding the

definition of the term “carry.” United States v. Rivas, 85 F.3d

193, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).

Freddie’s knowing transportation of the firearm in the vehicle

to protect himself and the drugs during the drug transaction

constitutes “carrying” within the meaning of § 924(c). See id. at

195-96. Therefore, we AFFIRM Freddie’s conviction.