alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 33 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 2003)

Subject:   Carrickmines Castle archeological finds

Could the Commission please indicate the current position as regards its investigations into the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out under Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and, in particular, its failure to appraise the impact on the archaeological heritage of the Carrickmines site? Further to the Commission's answer to Oral Question H-0649/02 (2), will it please indicate when it expects to report on its investigation, bearing in mind the urgent nature of this situation, given the imminent destruction of this archaeological treasure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The Commission confirms that its appraisal as regards the adequacy of assessment of archaeological impacts under the environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out on the M50 motorway project pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), is ongoing. This assessment raises precise technical questions that require careful examination. Separately the Commission is aware that work on this site has been halted by a legal action in the national courts related to compliance with national law. It is conscious of the desirability of advancing the examination of the EIA aspects, and hopes to be able to convey more precise information to the Honourable Member within the next two months.

----

(1)OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  Written reply dated 22 October 2002.

(3)OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

----
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE.

No. 315PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 30, 2015.

James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

James R. Demay, Concord, Attorney at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Town of Carthage.

Jennifer Welch, Raleigh, Attorney at Law.

James M. Carpenter, General Counsel, for N.C. Home Builders Association, Inc.

John T. Benjamin, Jr., Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Leading Builders of America.

William E. Hubbard, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Leading Builders of America.

Edward F. Hennessey, IV, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Home Builders Association, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of December 2015 by Plaintiffs:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of December 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Aswad Malik JONES.

No. COA15-173.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

MARK ANTHONY LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50515

D.C. No. 

3:12-cr-05236-GPC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 7, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Mark Anthony Lopez pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to

commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. At sentencing, the

district court conducted restitution proceedings under the Mandatory Victims

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Lopez appeals the district court’s restitution

order. We affirm.

Lopez’s argument that the government failed to present evidence that his

actions caused the losses to the shareholders fails. First, the government presented

evidence that the volume of Unico stock increased tenfold due to Lopez’s fraud

and the price of the stock decreased tenfold. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in inferring causation based on the fact that the extent of the dilution of

Unico stock during the conspiracy period is exceptionally close, proportionally, to

the decrease in share price over the same period. 

Second, there is evidence that the “spikes in trading volume” were directly

tied to the conspiracy. The government’s expert explained that these “spikes in

volume” corresponded to a decline in price, which indicated “that there’s a dilution

of shares; that there are so many more shares in the market, that the market maybe

possibly cannot sustain a higher share price.”

Third, Lopez has failed to identify any countervailing facts that would

undercut the theory that Lopez’s fraudulent actions caused the drop in share price. 

Neither Lopez nor his expert identified any specific, probative evidence of facts

other than the dilution of Unico stock during the conspiracy period, that could 

2
make the district court’s determination regarding the cause of the damaging

decrease in investors’ stock prices unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

3
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00633-CR

Style: Rudy Matamoros, Jr.

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: February 25, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 23, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: February 14, 2014

Date Requested: March 25, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part, denied in part

If document is to be filed, document due: March 17, 2014

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The record was originally due on October 23, 2013. The court reporter’s motion for extension is granted

part and denied in part. The reporter’s record is ordered filed no later than March 17, 2014, and no

further extensions will be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (requiring court to ensure record is timely

filed). If the record is not filed on or before March 17, 2014, this Court may require the court reporter to

appear and show cause why the record has not been filed.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: March 6, 2014
# C_2009193EN.01001602.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Danjaq v OHIM — Mission Productions (Dr. No)

(Case T-435/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Dr. No - Opposition by the proprietor of the non-registered word marks and signs Dr. No and Dr. NO - Failure to satisfy the requirement for earlier marks - Lack of a distinctive sign used in the course of trade - Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b), (2)(c) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 193/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Danjaq LLC (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: G. Hobbs QC, G. Hollingworth, Barrister, S. Skrein and L. Berg, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Mission Productions Gesellschaft für Film-, Fernseh- und Veranstaltungsproduktion mbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Lewinsky, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2005 (Case R 1118/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Danjaq LLC and Mission Productions Gesellschaft für Film-, Fernseh- und Veranstaltungsproduktion mbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Danjaq LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Danjaq LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3634 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3634

  To make loans and loan guarantees under section 502 of the Railroad 
    Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 available for 
  implementing positive train control systems, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 3, 2013

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. 
   Tonko, and Mr. Crowley) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make loans and loan guarantees under section 502 of the Railroad 
    Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 available for 
  implementing positive train control systems, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commuter Rail Passenger Safety 
Act''.

SEC. 2. POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS.

    Section 502(b)(1) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(b)(1)), is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'';
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``facilities.'' and 
        inserting ``facilities; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) implement a positive train control system, as 
                required by section 20157 of title 49, United States 
                Code.''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY GRANTS.

    Section 20158(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$100,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``2009 through 2013'' and inserting ``2014 
        through 2018''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1083

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:97-cv-01969-WDQ)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael N. Russo,

Jr., COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, PA, Annapolis, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district

court’s orders denying his motion to reopen a civil action and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. Toyota Motor

Credit Corp., No. 1:97-cv-01969-WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2007; Dec. 18,

2007). Wilder’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Marko STASIV, Defendant.

No. COA15-806.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald
      N. Tateishi, Chief Financial Officer 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/
        DONALD N.
        TATEISHI


Donald
      N.
      Tateishi


Chief
        Financial Officer


January
        25, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Boise and Payette 
National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will 
conduct a business meeting, which is open to the public.

DATES: Wednesday, September 21, 2005, beginning at 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: USDA Forest Service, Payette National Forest, Council Ranger 
District, 500 East Whitely Avenue, Council, Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review and 
approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal 
Officer, at 208-392-6681 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#385c5f575b5056574d4a785e4b165e5d5c164d4b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3551525a565d5b5a40477553461b5350511b4046">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 9, 2005.
Richard A. Smith,
Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-18318 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Nathaniel Ray McLEAN v. HARNETT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT Jacqualyn L. Lee.

No. 429P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Nathaniel Ray McLean, for McLean, Nathaniel Ray.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Harnett County District Court.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 22nd of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Harnett County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
STATE v. James Emmanuel NETTLES.

No. 439P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Phillip K. Woods, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James Emmanuel Nettles, Brunswick, for Nettles, James Emmanuel.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of December 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> *485"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**OMAR BRADLEY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 179 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
STATE v. Darrell Wayne MANESS.

No. 402A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 28, 2007.

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Maness.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of December 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Maness) shall have up to and including the 26th day *376of January 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of December 2007."
STATE v. CREDLE.

No. COA07-1021.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Beaufort (06CRS51607).

Cases reported without published opinion. Remanded.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1595-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1595-DR), dated July 10, 2005, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

August 31, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now July 7, 2005, through and including July 20, 2005.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 05-17992 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Julie LANCASTER and Brannon Lancaster v. HAROLD K. JORDAN AND CO., INC., Withers & Ravenel, Inc., Arthur R. Cogswell, and Lighthouse Engineering, PA.

No. 341A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for Lancaster, Julie, et al.

W. Cory Reiss, Wilmington, for Lancaster, Julie, et al.

Thomas M. Buckley, Raleigh, for Harold K. Jordan and Co., Inc.

William J. Wolf, Durham, for Harold K. Jordan And Co., Inc.

Matthew W. Buckmiller, Wilmington.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiffs on the 6th of October 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant (Harold K. Jordan and Co., Inc.), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Respondent

v. LEROY E. GLICK AND SAVILLE S. GLICK, HIS WIFE, Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 586 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Paul FRAMPTON v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL.

No. 248P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Barry Nakell, for Frampton, Paul.

Kimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorney General, for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 29th of July 2015 by Petitioner-Plaintiff 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 28th of January 2016."