alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008107EN.01000501.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Netherlands) — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-446/06) (1)

1

(Beef and veal - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Article 3(f) - Grant of a suckler cow premium - Conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice)

(2008/C 107/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.G. Winkel

Applicant:

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ L 1999 L 160, p. 21) — Compatibility of national legislation which makes the award of a suckler-cow premium subject to conditions corresponding to a usual animal husbandry practice

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July 2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         109,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,946,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 15,458,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,058,482
<PP&E>                                      11,445,480
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,929,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,594,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,421,348
<BONDS>                                     20,864,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,023,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,594,686
<SALES>                                     14,524,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,524,313
<CGS>                                       11,492,346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,492,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,429,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             504,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,132
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023338EN.01002902.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/29

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — OT v Council

(Case T-286/23 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2023/C 338/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, C. Sand and P. Blanchetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac, V. Piessevaux and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF WISS & COMPANY, LLP

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and
to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 6, 2003 relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Xechem International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002 in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-71742) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2001 and declared effective on
March 28, 2001.

WISS & COMPANY, LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 14, 2004

<PAGE>
1136.

#### Bryant, for use, etc., *v.*Anderson.

Appeal, from G-rady superior court — Judge Spence. March 3, 1908.

Submitted June 12, 1908.

Decided February 9, 1909.

*Pope & Bennet,*for plaintiff.

*Ledford & Terrell,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

1. In order that a defendant in error may assign error upon rulings made adversely to him pending the progress of the ease, he should file a cross-bill of exceptions. The proceeding authorized by the act of August 22, 1905 (Georgia Laws 1905, p. *84)¡*whereby the bill of exceptions may be amended in the interest of developing the whole truth of the ease, is in no sense a cross-bill of exceptions.

2. The questions asked by the trial judge of the plaintiff while he was on the stand as a witness were of such a nature as to intimate an opinion on the part of the judge as to the truth of a material disputed issue of fact in the ease. This is a violation of section 4334 of the Civil Code, and is reversible error. *Sharpton v. State,*1 *Ga. App.*542 (57 S. E. 929) ; *Rouse v. State,*2 *Ga. App.*184 (58 S. E. 416).

*Judgment reversed.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51121

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALFREDO SIFUENTES-SANDOVAL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1421-ALL

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Alfredo Sifuentes-Sandoval (Sifuentes) appeals his 240-month

sentence following his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to smuggle aliens

resulting in death. In his written plea agreement, Sifuentes waived his right to

appeal his sentence “on any ground” except on certain grounds not raised here.

The Government seeks to enforce the waiver.

Sifuentes argues that the waiver is unenforceable because the Government

breached his plea agreement by objecting to the presentence report and arguing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51121

2

for numerous sentencing enhancements. Because Sifuentes did not object in the

district court to a breach of the plea agreement, this issue is reviewed for plain

error only. See United States v. Puckett, 505 F.3d 377, 384 (5th Cir. 2007),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 3, 2008) (No. 07-9712). When analyzing a claim that

a plea agreement has been breached, we consider “whether the government’s

conduct is consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the

agreement.” United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369, 387-88 (5th Cir.) (quotation

marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2893 (2007). 

Although the parties agreed that certain guideline provisions “shall be

consulted and taken into account,” the Government reserved its rights to present

and dispute sentencing facts and factors. Sifuentes’s interpretation of the plea

agreement as precluding the Government from arguing that other guideline

provisions should be applied is unreasonable. He has failed to establish a breach

of the plea agreement that is plain, obvious, or affected his substantial rights.

Sifuentes does not argue that the appeal waiver was unknowing or

involuntary, and under the plain language of the plea agreement, the waiver

applies to the circumstances at hand. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542,

544 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Sifuentes’s appeal waiver bars review of his

sentence.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Fred REEVES, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-210.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kasean Damont BRYSON.

No. 248P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

William B. Gibson, Winston-Salem, for Bryson.

Kathleen Mary Barry, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of June 2008 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
BYRD, et al. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY.

No. 462A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Aubrey S. Tomlinson, Jr., Louisburg, for Franklin County (NC).

George B. Currin, Raleigh, for Byrd, Aaron, et al.

Camden R. Webb, Raleigh, for Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of August 2015 by Respondent to Strike Reply Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 19, 2011

Decided January 13, 2012

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 11‐2908

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

BERNARD ELLIS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:05‐CR‐00131‐RLM‐1

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

A jury convicted Bernard Ellis, the chief enforcer for a Chicago street gang, of five

counts of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement intended to deceive a licensed

gun dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(a)(6), and 924(a)(2), and four counts of

possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the

judge determined that Ellis qualified as an armed career criminal, which (in combination

with other factors) placed him in criminal‐history category VI and resulted in an advisory

guidelines range of 360 months to life. The judge imposed a total sentence of 480 months.

Ellis appealed.  

On appeal we reversed one of Ellis’s felon‐in‐possession convictions on double‐

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 11‐2908 Page 2

jeopardy grounds but affirmed the remaining convictions. See United States v. Ellis, 622 F.3d

784, 793‐96 (7th Cir. 2010). We also vacated Ellis’s sentence after concluding that he did not

qualify as an armed career criminal. See id. at 796‐800. Finally, we remanded the case for

resentencing.

On remand the sentencing judge determined that even without the armed‐career‐

criminal designation, Ellis remained in criminal‐history category VI. Accordingly, his

advisory guidelines range was still 360 months to life. After hearing arguments from both

sides, the judge again imposed a total sentence of 480 months. Ellis appealed.

In this second appeal, Ellis challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his

sentence, which we review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 911 (7th Cir. 2011). Ellis’s sentence falls within a

properly calculated guidelines range, so it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Kilgore, 591 F.3d 890, 895

(7th Cir. 2010).

Ellis’s appeal essentially asks us to substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing

judge. The judge acknowledged Ellis’s arguments for a lower sentence—which he repeats in

his appellate brief—but concluded that a 40‐year sentence was appropriate.  Among other

things, the judge emphasized Ellis’s extensive criminal history, which involved multiple

violent crimes. As a result, the judge found that Ellis presented a heightened need for

punishment and deterrence. Ellis has not rebutted the presumption that this within‐

guidelines sentence is reasonable; the judge did not abuse his discretion.

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136414 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GRAND RAPIDS HOUSING COMMISSION Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, and MT. MERCY HOUSING CORPORATION, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 136414 

 COA: 273513 

Kent CC: 05-007189-CK 

OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1828]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, SBIR Topic 31--New Technology Development 
for Global Assay of Blood Coagulation.
    Date: March 21, 2005.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone conference call).
    Contact Person: Shelley S. Sehnert, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, NIH/NHLBI, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 
7206, Bethesda, MD 20892-792, 301-435-0303.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, SBIR Topic 32--Bioreactor Production for 
Gene Therapy of Muscular Dystrophy.
    Date: March 21, 2005.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone conference call).
    Contact Person: Shelley S. Sehnert, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, NIH/NHLBI, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 
7206, Bethesda, MD 20892-792, 301-435-0303.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1828 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6975

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTT MATTINGLY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-241-A, CA-00-80-AM) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Mattingly, Appellant Pro Se. Gavin Alexander Corn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We recently held in United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable. 2 PER CURIAM: Scott Mattingly seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Mattingly’s “Notice Motion,” and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Mattingly, Nos. CR-97-241-A; CA-00-80-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 12, 2001; entered Apr. 13, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of GameTech International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 52 weeks ended October 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott H. Shackelton, Interim President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ SCOTT H. SHACKELTON


Scott H. Shackelton


Interim President


May 30, 2012
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 505 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the above-theline deduction for teacher classroom supplies and to expand such deduction to include qualified professional development expenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. WARNER, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. 

VITTER, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. NELSON of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and to expand such deduction to include qualified 

professional development expenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teacher Tax Relief 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 505 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR 

2 CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND 

3 SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (D) of section 

5 62(a)(2) (relating to certain trade and business deductions 

6 of employees) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(D) CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY

8 AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.—The de9 ductions allowed by section 162 which consist of 

10 expenses, not in excess of $400, paid or in11 curred by an eligible educator— 

12 ‘‘(i) by reason of the participation of 

13 the educator in professional development 

14 courses related to the curriculum and aca15 demic subjects in which the educator pro16 vides instruction or to the students for 

17 which the educator provides instruction, 

18 and 

19 ‘‘(ii) in connection with books, sup20 plies (other than nonathletic supplies for 

21 courses of instruction in health or physical 

22 education), computer equipment (including 

23 related software and services) and other 

24 equipment, and supplementary materials 

25 used by the eligible educator in the class26 room.’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 505 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
**Exhibit 99.6****Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-126037, 333-126038,333-126039, 333-126040 and 333-138760 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated March 10,2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Goldcorp Inc. (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of CanadianInstitute of Chartered Accountants Handbook Sections 1530 — Comprehensive Income, 3251 — Equity,3855 — Financial Instruments — Recognition and Measurement, 3861 — Financial Instruments —Disclosure and Presentation and 3865 — Hedges, effective January 1, 2007) and the effectiveness ofGoldcorp Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPIndependent Registered Chartered Accountants