alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LAKEMPER v. BECK.

No. 86P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Beck.

*839The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of February 2007 by Defendant to Proceed as Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2007."
# C_2023071EN.01003701.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/37

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — ACE v Council

(Case T-828/22)

(2023/C 71/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ACE-Avocats, ensemble (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible and well-founded the action for annulment in part of the contested regulation, in Article 1(12) thereof, amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible and well-founded the action for annulment in part of the contested regulation, in Article 1(12) thereof, amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2014;

| — | annul Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant and rule that it must bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant and rule that it must bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law and, in particular, of several judgments of the Court of Justice and of European directives recognising the right of lawyers to provide legal advice services without specific restrictions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law and, in particular, of several judgments of the Court of Justice and of European directives recognising the right of lawyers to provide legal advice services without specific restrictions;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-40362

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOYD ALLEN COFFEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(4:94-CR-22-3)

 

January 31, 1996

Before GARWOOD, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-appellant Boyd Allen Coffee (Coffee) appeals the

district court’s judgment sentencing him to thirty-three months’

imprisonment. Coffee argues only that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to the four-point upward

adjustment to his offense level for leader/organizer status. No

such contention was raised below. For that reason, and because the
2

record before us does not demonstrate that the requisites of such

a claim are established, we follow the general rule and decline to

review this contention, and we accordingly hereby affirm the

judgement below. See United States v. Munoz-Romo, 947 F.2d 170,

179 (5th Cir. 1991). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice

to whatever right Coffee would otherwise have to pursue his claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel in appropriate proceedings

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED
[ARTICLE] 9
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1997
[CASH]                                       6,330,247
[INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS]                               0
[FED-FUNDS-SOLD]                                     0
[TRADING-ASSETS]                                     0
[INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE]                 62,599,710
[INVESTMENTS-CARRYING]                               0
[INVESTMENTS-MARKET]                                 0
[LOANS]                                     15,051,923
[ALLOWANCE]                                     25,000
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                              85,030,123
[DEPOSITS]                                  61,693,971
[SHORT-TERM]                                 6,500,000
[LIABILITIES-OTHER]                            478,577
[LONG-TERM]                                          0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                         8,565
[OTHER-SE]                                  16,349,010
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]              85,030,123
[INTEREST-LOAN]                                286,569
[INTEREST-INVEST]                            1,133,443
[INTEREST-OTHER]                                35,753
[INTEREST-TOTAL]                             1,455,765
[INTEREST-DEPOSIT]                             799,513
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             898,789
[INTEREST-INCOME-NET]                          556,976
[LOAN-LOSSES]                                        0
[SECURITIES-GAINS]                                   0
[EXPENSE-OTHER]                                235,779
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                330,262
[INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY]                     199,956
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   199,956
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .26
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .26
[YIELD-ACTUAL]                                       0
[LOANS-NON]                                      9,000
[LOANS-PAST]                                     9,000
[LOANS-TROUBLED]                                     0
[LOANS-PROBLEM]                                      0
[ALLOWANCE-OPEN]                                25,000
[CHARGE-OFFS]                                        0
[RECOVERIES]                                         0
[ALLOWANCE-CLOSE]                               25,000
[ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC]                            25,000
[ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN]                                  0
[ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED]                         25,000
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information  extracted from the
consolidated  financial statements of The Associated Group, Inc. included in
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      296,051
<SECURITIES>                                      0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                10,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                  2,534
<INVENTORY>                                   1,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            360,540
<PP&E>                                      308,524
<DEPRECIATION>                               51,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,578,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       354,821
<BONDS>                                     590,031
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      3,817
<OTHER-SE>                                1,039,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,578,830
<SALES>                                         155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,911
<CGS>                                            96
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                39,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             11,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                331
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           22,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (89,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (2,340)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (87,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (87,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (2.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>
<F1>
Does not include $1,810,389 of noncurrent marketable equity securities and 
$71,258 restricted cash and investments.
</FN> 
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  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)

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), each of the
undersigned officers of UST Private Equity Investors Fund, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 16, 2003                    /s/ David I. Fann
                                      --------------------------
                                      Name: David I. Fann
                                      Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 16, 2003                    /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
                                      --------------------------
                                      Name: Douglas A. Lindgren
                                      Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 16, 2003                    /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
                                      --------------------------
                                      Name: Robert F. Aufenanger
                                      Title: Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3641 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law 

Institute to provide support for victims of crime under 

Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of 

the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

S 3641 RFH

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION. 

2 Section 103(b) of the Justice for All Act of 2004 

3 (Public Law 108–405; 118 Stat. 2264) is amended in 

4 paragraphs (1) through (5) by striking ‘‘2006, 2007, 

5 2008, and 2009’’ each place it appears and inserting 

6 ‘‘2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013’’. 

Passed the Senate September 27 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE v. WHEELER.

No. COA07-1306.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Pitt (04CRS11216).

Cases reported without published opinion. Vacated.
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



The undersigned officer of Boston Properties, Inc., the
sole general partner of Boston Properties Limited Partnership (the Company), hereby certifies to my knowledge that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification shall not be deemed filed for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



Date: March 16, 2005



/s/    EDWARD H. LINDEEdward H. LindeChief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, Inc.,general partner of Boston Properties Limited Partnership
----

----

|   | (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 Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                          |                                                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  November 18,  2011 |   /s/ David K. Young                                                   |   |
|                                          | David K. Young                                                              |   |
|                                          | President, Chief Operating Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |   |

----

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,658,417
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,939,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                   110,000
<INVENTORY>                                    8,916,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,584,652
<PP&E>                                         901,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                 397,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,144,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,125,902
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       45,117
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,973,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,018,849
<SALES>                                        15,056,999
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,056,999
<CGS>                                          11,048,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,550,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,549,651
<INCOME-TAX>                                   597,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            952,651
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   952,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .21
        


</TABLE>
Order filed July 16 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19
- 00320
- CV NO. 14

- 19
- 0032 1
- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF G
. A. A.

- G., J.S.A.

- S. , CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2007
- 20638 & 2008

- 39339



### ORDER
These are accelerated appeal s from judgment s in suit s in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. A jury trial took place between March 14, 2013 and April 10, 2013. Clerk’s records were filed in these appeals on April 25, 2019 and April 29, 2019.
Our review of the records has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk ’ s record s
. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record s do not contain a copy of th e jury charge.The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s

record on or before August 1, 2019 , containing the jury charge. If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplement al clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7109

JAMES CHARLES CALWILE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. H. MAUNEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:15-cv-02089-TMC)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Charles Calwile seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Calwile has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Calwile’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 
3

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
STATE v. WALL.

No. COA07-1245.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (05CRS59014).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
----

(2004/C 33 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1609/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Human Trafficking Experts Group

Can the Commission please give me details on the purpose and remit of its ‘Human Trafficking Experts Group’?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

On 25 March 2003, the Commission adopted Decision 2003/209/EC setting up a consultative group to be known as the ‘Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings’ (1).

The experts group shall be an important element for the implementation of the Brussels Declaration. This document was the final outcome of European Conference on Prevention and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings — Global Challenge for the 21st Century from 18 to 20 September 2002. It includes an annex of recommendations, standards and best practices. The experts group shall contribute substantively to the further development of the prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings. According to Article 2 of the Decision, the Commission may consult the experts group on any matter relating to trafficking in human beings. In particular, a report of the experts group based on the recommendations of the Brussels Declaration shall be submitted within a period of nine months following the setting up of the group in order to assist the Commission with a view to launching further concrete proposals at Union level, for example an action plan or a communication.

The group shall consist of 20 experts. The Commission shall appoint the group members from a list made up of all persons proposed by governments of Member States and Candidate Countries as well as by specific international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations. The Commission shall publish the list of members for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.

According to Article 5 of the Commission Decision, there shall be no remuneration for the tasks performed by the members of the experts group. Travel expenses will be reimbursed following the rules for consultative committees (A-07031). Four plenary meetings of the experts group as well as four working party meetings (possible according to Article 6 of the Commission Decision) per year might be necessary. However, the number of meetings may have to be reconsidered further to budgetary requirements as well as to the view of the group once established.

----

(1)OJ L 79, 26.3.2003.

----