alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023286DE.01004201.xml

| 14.8.2023 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 286/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 286/42

---

Berichtigung der Rechtssache C-328/23: Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien

(
  Amtblatt der Europäischen Union C 261 vom 24. Juli 2023
  )

(2023/C 286/57)

Auf der Titelseite, im Titel:

| Anstatt: | „Rechtssache C-328/23: Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien“, |
| --- | --- |

Anstatt:

„Rechtssache C-328/23: Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien“,

| muss es heißen: | „Rechtssache C-318/23: Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien“. |
| --- | --- |

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Rechtssache C-318/23: Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien“.

Auf Seite 16, im Titel:

| Anstatt: | „Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien


  (Rechtssache C-328/23)“, |
| --- | --- |

Anstatt:

Anstatt:

„Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien

(Rechtssache C-328/23)“,

| muss es heißen: | „Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien


  (Rechtssache C-318/23)“. |
| --- | --- |

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Klage, eingereicht am 24. Mai 2023 — Europäische Kommission/Republik Slowenien

(Rechtssache C-318/23)“.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1842

WILLIAM C. POSEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-663)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Posey, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lori Fuller, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the

magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his complaint

filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 12101-12213 (West 1995). We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Posey v. North Carolina, No.

CA-95-663 (M.D.N.C. May 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

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

AFFIRMED
TRUHAN v. WALSTON, et al.

No. 364P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Ann C. Ochsner, Raleigh, for Walston, Susan P.

Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, Raleigh, for Truhan, Daniel, et al.

Timothy W. Wilson, Rocky Mount, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for United Services Automobile Association.

Thomas H. Morris, Wilson, for Walston, Susan P., et al.

Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, David M.

James D. Secor, III, for Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.

Donald J. Dunn, Goldsboro, for Truhan, Daniel Joseph.

Fred Baggett, for N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, for New Hanover County.

Lowell L. Siler, Durham, for Durham County.

Angela I. Carmon, for City of Winston Salem.

R. Michael Cox, Pasquotank County Attorney, for Pasquotank County.

Debra Bechtel, for Catawba County.

Sam Shames, for Gaston County.

John F. Henning, Jr., Franklin, for Town of Franklin.

Wesley L. Deaton, for Lincoln County.

Huey B. Marshall, Bolivia, for Brunswick County.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, for N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Leon M. Killian, III, Raleigh, for Haywood County.

Chester M. Jones, Franklin, for Macon County.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of November 2014 by Lincoln County for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No. 12-4574

_________

ROY LANGBORD; DAVID LANGBORD; JOAN LANGBORD

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES 

BUREAU OF THE MINT; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF THE TREASURY; ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

MINT; CHIEF COUNSEL UNITED STATES MINT; DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE 

UNITED STATES MINT; JOHN DOE NOS. 1 TO 10 “JOHN DOE” BEING 

FICTIONAL FIRST AND LAST NAMES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendants-Appellees

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Third Party Plaintiff

v. 

TEN 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE GOLD PIECES; ROY LANGBORD; DAVID 

LANGBORD; JOAN LANGBORD

Third Party Defendants

ROY LANGBORD, DAVID LANGBORD, JOAN LANGBORD

Appellants

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2:06-cv-05315)

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, 

CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, 

KRAUSE, SLOVITER1 and RENDELL2 Circuit Judges

ORDER

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above 

captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of 

this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The 

opinion and judgment entered April 17, 2015 are hereby vacated.

By the Court,

s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Chief Circuit Judge

Date: July 28, 2015

SLC/cc: Barry H. Berke, Esq.

Jacqueline C. Romero, Esq.

Erica A. Tirschwell, Esq.

Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq.

 

1 As to panel rehearing only; will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d. Cir. I.O.P. 

9.6.4. 

2 As to panel rehearing only; will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d. Cir. I.O.P. 

9.6.4.
STATE v. Kelvin Allen McNEIL.

No. 508P10-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 3, 2011.

David B. Efird, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kelvin Allen McNeil, Brunswick, for McNeil, Kelvin Allen.

Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of December 2010 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2011."
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, DC 20549

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                                   FORM 10-QSB
(Mark One)

__X__ Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1996

_____  Transition  report under  Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act for the
transition period from __________ to ___________.

                         Commission file number 01-13470

                             BIG SMITH BRANDS, INC.
        (Exact Name of Small Business Issuer as Specified in Its Charter)

              Delaware                                        13-3005371
              --------                                        ----------
(State or Other Jurisdiction of                            (I.R.S. Employer
 Incorporation or Organization)                           Identification No.)

           7100 West Camino Real, Suite 201, Boca Raton, Florida 33433
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

                                 (407) 367-8283
                (Issuer's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

                                       N/A
         (Former Name, Former Address and Former Fiscal Year, if Changed
                               Since Last Report)

         Check whether the issuer: (1) filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the  Exchange  Act during the past 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the  registrant was required to file such reports),  and (2)
has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes__X__            No____

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of November 13, 1996:  3,930,000

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):  Yes____    No__X__


<PAGE>

Exhibit 27 to the above referenced 10QSB was not filed with the original filing.
That  error is being  corrected  by this  Amendment  No. 1. The  Exhibit  27 FDS
follows as a separate document which may be added to the original filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
 STATEMENTS FOR
THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND
 IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000930817
<NAME> PL BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Apr-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Aug-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         131,229
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  429,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    171,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               740,069
<PP&E>                                         816,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                 585,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 970,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          731,875
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,120
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,109,343)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   970,810
<SALES>                                        1,575,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,575,594
<CGS>                                          1,403,759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,592)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (40,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (40,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,410)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        

                                                        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### Frances Fisher, Respondent, v Moses Fisher, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 518]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered March 12, 2002, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated January 28, 2004, which granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to remove to the Supreme Court, Kings County, a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 pending in the Family Court, Kings County, in effect, to modify a provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated December 4, 2001, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated June 14, 2004, as, in effect, upon converting the petition to a motion for the same relief, denied his motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding that the defendant commenced in that court *(see Matter of Huddleston v Huddleston,*14 AD3d 511 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to remove the proceeding to the Supreme Court *(see*CFLR 325 [b]). Moreover, as the defendant failed to establish some basis for vacating or modifying the parties’ stipulation of settlement, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Remand and Opinion Filed November 1, 2021

In The 

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

No. 05

- 21

- 00163

- CV

RICHARD BROCK COMPTON, IVY CREEK INVESTMENTS, LTD.,

MINERAL POINT HOLDING CO., LLC, AND

KAZOKU INVESTMENTS LTD. , Appellants

V.

KELLY MARIE HOGLUND COMPTON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 18

- 25368

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to render judgment pursuant to

sett lement agreement and either Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(A)

or 42.1(a)(2)(B). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42. 1(a)(2). Pursuant to rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), w e

grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s December 14, 2020 order without regard– 2

–

to the merits

, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in

accordance with the parties’ agreement. See id. 42.1(a)(2)(B)

.

210163f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ /
BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE– 3

– 

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

JUDGMENT

RICHARD BROCK COMPTON, IVY CREEK INVESTMENTS, LTD., MINERAL POINT HOLDING CO., LLC, AND KAZOKU INVESTMENTS LTD., Appellants

No. 05

- 21

- 00163

- CV V.

KELLY MARIE HOGLUND COMPTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 18

- 25368. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III, Justices Osborne and Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE , without regard to the merits, the trial court’s December 14, 2020 “Order Granting Kelly Compton’s Second Amended Motion to Enforce Partial Mediated Settlement Agreement by Appointing Third Party to Effectuate Distribution of Assets” and

REMAND the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

Subject to the parties’ agreement, we ORDER that appellee Kelly Marie Hoglund Compton reco ver her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Richard Brock Compton, Ivy Creek Investments, Ltd., M ineral Point Holding Co., LLC, a nd

Kazoku Investments Ltd.

Judgment entered this 1 st day of November, 2021.
# CE2004088EN.01010901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/109

---

(2004/C 88 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   The sociologist Mehmet Bercet and the head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, Sefika Gurbuz, on trial in Turkey for inciting racial hatred

Subject:

Following the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Kurds from the south-east of Turkey to the outskirts of that country's major cities, and in particular Istanbul, the sociologist Mehmet Bercet, himself an ethnic Kurd, launched a study in association with the Istanbul-based refugee organisation Goc-Der to assess the difficult living conditions and oppression endured by those people, who have been compelled to flee their own villages and leave behind their land, jobs and houses. The results of this study were announced by Sefika Gurbuz, head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, at a press conference held in Istanbul on 17 July 2002. Sefika Gurbuz was accused of ‘separatism’ under Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code for having announced the results, while Mehmet Bercet, as the main author of the study, was charged with inciting racial hatred. Both were brought before the State Security Court. A first hearing was held on 25 November 2002 and at the subsequent hearing of 12 March 2003 the prosecution called for three year's imprisonment for both the accused.

How does the Commission view this situation? Should it not make it quite clear to the Turkish Government that these accusations and the indictment of Sefika Gurbuz and Mehmet Bercet clash totally with the possibility of Turkey entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

(1 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As regards freedom of expression, Turkey has adopted a series of reforms over the last two years introducing changes to several articles of the Turkish Penal Code. In particular, the grounds for limiting freedom of expression in Article 312 have been amended in view of complying with the European standards.

According to official data, it appears that the majority of cases launched against individuals on grounds of freedom of expression over the last year have been concluded with acquittals by courts.

However, court cases against individuals continue to occur, often reflecting a restrictive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed to the Turkish authorities the need for a practical implementation of the reforms for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of their origin.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria and will make a detailed assessment in its Regular Report to be published in November 2003.

---
# CE2004088EN.01044001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/440 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/440

---

(2004/C 88 E/0446)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Status of the Turkish language

Subject:

What will be the status of the Turkish language following the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004? Will the Commission make a comparison with the status of Gaelic and Luxembourgish?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

(21 October 2003)

In the absence of a settlement before 1 May 2004, the Turkish language will not have the status of an official or working language of the Institutions of the Union, as no such provision has been included in the Accession Treaty. Instead, Protocol No 10 annexed to the Accession Treaty, foresees in this case that the ‘acquis’ is suspended in those areas of Cyprus in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

The Commission continues to encourage all parties to reach a solution to the Cyprus problem before 1 May 2004. The mentioned Protocol No 10 therefore contains an enabling clause allowing for adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus to the Union with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community. Such adaptations can also relate to the status of the Turkish language.

The Commission has decided to dedicate EUR 3 million for the translation of relevant pieces of the ‘acquis’ into the Turkish language to prepare and facilitate the process bringing the northern part of Cyprus closer to the Union. This project is currently implemented.

---
# The Seeds (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 295

Seeds

# The Seeds (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

4th December 2014

Coming into force

31st December 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (14.7.2016) by The Seed Marketing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 (S.R. 2016/244), regs. 1, **35(2)(j)**
**Exhibit32.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONS OFPERIODIC REPORT**

#### ** **

I, John R. Serino, President and Chief Executive Officer of EncisionInc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

•                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Dated: | November 5, 2004.                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ John R. Serino                    |   |
|   |                                  |
|   | John R. Serino                        |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

I, Marcia McHaffie, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer ofEncision Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: | November 5, 2004.                           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ Marcia McHaffie                         |   |
|   |                                        |
|   | Marcia McHaffie                             |
|   | Controller and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

1

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Med Tom SAYAVONG.

No. 461P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Med Tom Sayavong, Pro Se.

June S. Ferrell, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th day of October 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."