alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008247EN.01002401.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/24

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Expasa v OHMI — Gallardo Blanco (H)

(Case T-172/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 247/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00357-CV

K. E. P., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-FM-14-006547, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant K.E.P. filed her notice of appeal on May 26, 2016. The appellate 

record was complete June 3, 2016, making appellant’s brief due June 23, 2016. To date, 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater 

compliance with briefing deadlines. Therefore we order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later 

than July 14, 2016. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause 

why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on June 29, 2016.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field
STATE v. Christopher Anthony CLEGG.

No. 101P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Christopher Anthony Clegg, Raleigh, for Clegg, Christopher Anthony.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of December 2015 by Defendant for Clerk Discharge of Debtors:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
# C_2011340EN.01003401.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, and, finally, by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category C and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in Grades B*3/B*4, maintaining their remuneration at the level prior to the change of category by applying a multiplying coeffficient, and resetting their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121 of 20.05.06, p. 19.

1

---
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 2016.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of March 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of March 2016."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 2nd of May 2016 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
# C_2009113EN.01000302.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-510/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate market - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Community competition policy - Equal treatment - Turnover to be taken into account - Attenuating circumstances)

2009/C 113/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: M. Garcia, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01 Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission, by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2001)2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
STATE v. Oakland McCULLOCH.

No. 24P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for McCulloch, Oakland.

Ryan Christopher Zellar, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Southern Pines, for McCulloch, Oakland.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*901The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of January 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
----

(2004/C 78 E/0798)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/03

by Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Infringements of legality in Lebanon

Given that:

Considering that:

Knowing that:

Can the Council say:

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council shares with the Honourable Members the concerns expressed in their question and is keeping a close watch on human rights issues in Lebanon. On several occasions approaches have been made to the Lebanese authorities to raise specific cases.

On 17 June 2002 the European Union signed an Association Agreement with Lebanon, and it is currently in the process of being ratified by the Member States. The Interim Agreement on trade-related matters, which was concluded at the same time, entered into force on 1 March 2003. Once the Association Agreement applies, the possibilities for monitoring human rights issues will be enhanced, on the basis of Article 2 of the Agreement which stipulates that relations between the Parties will be based on respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These issues will then be the subject of an institutionalised political dialogue, which will take place regularly at all levels. Until the Association Agreement enters into force, the European Union is not able to invoke Article 86.

The European Union will seek to improve the human rights situation in Lebanon, by establishing a regular ongoing dialogue with the Lebanese authorities. It is planned to hold a Cooperation Council with Lebanon in the first half of 2004. On that occasion, the European Union does indeed intend to raise these issues within the political section of the meeting.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Alexander Louis SMALLS.

No. COA15-440.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2018

No. 04-17-00739-CV

Edward R MEZA, Jr., Sylvia Meza and New Braunfels Home Health Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Gloria BURNS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00380

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

By order dated May 31, 2018, appellant was ordered to show cause by June 15, 2018, 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution for failing to timely file the 

appellant’s brief. Appellant filed a response stating the attorney erroneously calendared the 

deadline for filing the brief. Appellant filed his brief with his response. The appeal is 

RETAINED on the docket of the court.

Although appellant’s brief contains an appendix, the appendix does not contain a copy of 

the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k). Although the Court is not ordering the 

appellant to rebrief at this time, appellant is instructed to file an appendix containing the trial 

court’s judgment within ten days from the date of this order. This order does not affect the 

deadline for the filing of the appellee’s brief which is due to be filed no later than July 16, 2018.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

December 27, 2017

s1218 

# Order

Clerk December 27, 2017

155335 & (23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155335

COA: 334548

Wayne CC: 02

- 014334

- FC

J’VON DECARRO BYNUM

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to supplement is GRANTED. The application

for leave to appeal the January 6 , 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by

MCR 6.502(G).

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel at an

earlier stage of the proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                  

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           4,716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,324
<INVENTORY>                                     38,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,372
<PP&E>                                          44,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,519
<BONDS>                                         22,474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,368
<SALES>                                         34,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,309
<CGS>                                           22,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,102
<INCOME-TAX>                                       432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                670
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10494 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUSTAVO GALINDO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:91-CR-33-01

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gustavo Galindo Ramirez filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion seeking credit for time served while he was detained by state officials prior to the imposition of his federal sentence. A motion seeking credit for time served by the mover prior to the date of the imposition of his federal sentence is not cognizable under Rule 35. United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez , 835 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988). Because Ramirez's motion isNo. 95-10494 -2- challenging the manner in which his sentence is being executed rather than the validity of the sentence imposed, it should be construed as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Tubwell , 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); see United States v. Weathersby , 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). Section 2241 petitions must be filed in the district where the petitioner is incarcerated. United States v. Gabor , 905 F.2d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1990). Ramirez was incarcerated in the Western District of Texas at the time that he filed the motion to reduce his sentence and he remains incarcerated at that same location. Therefore, the district court in the Northern District of Texas did not have jurisdiction to review his § 2241 petition. Further, Ramirez was required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his federal habeas petition. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 335-36 (1992); United States v. Dowling , 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992). Ramirez has not alleged that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and there is no evidence in the record indicating that he has availed himself of such remedies. The district court's denial of Ramirez's motion is AFFIRMED based on that court's lack of jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition. AFFIRMED.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2007 – Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament**

**(Case T‐132/06)**

Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Action partly clearly inadmissable and partly clearly devoid of legal foundation

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effets – Obligation to adopt measures to comply with the judgment (Art.
233 EC) (see paras 28-30)*

2.                     *European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament (see
paras 41-46)*

3.                     *Procedure – Res judicata – Scope (see paras 49-51)*

4.                     *Procedure – Production before the Court of First Instance of opinions given by the legal services of the Community institutions
before the Court of First Instance – Conditions (see para. 68)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ANNULMENT of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 22 March 2006 adopted in consequence of the Court of First Instance’s judgment of 22 December 2005 in Case T-146/04 | Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso | v | Parliament | [2005] ECR II‐5989. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the applicant, Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, to pay the costs. |
Amendment No. 01 to the Diazyme Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.24

 [*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential
treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 01 

TO 
 diaDexus, Inc.

 SERVICES AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 01 is effective August 17, 2009 and is issued to change [*] Exhibit B, Pricing, as a result of additional testing efforts requested by diaDexus. 

Accordingly, Exhibit B, Pricing, pages 17 and 18 of the SERVICES AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT, effective January 1, 2009, is replaced with the attached
Exhibit B, Pricing, pages 17 and 18, revised on August 17, 2009. 
 Except as specifically stated herein, all other terms, conditions and
provisions of the original Services and Supply Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged. 
  

					
	DiaDEXUS, INC.	  		 	DIAZYME LABORATORIES
		  		 	A division of General Atomics
			
	 /s/ P. Plewman
	  		 	 /s/ Anthony Navarra

	Signature	  		 	Signature
			
	 P. Plewman; President & CEO
	  		 	Anthony Navarra,
	(Name & Title of Signatory)	  		 	Senior Vice President
			
	 8/18/09
	  		 	 8-16-09

	Date	  		 	Date








  
 EXHIBIT B

 PRICING 
 [*] 
 [*] Two pages have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Consolidated Financial Statements of Maxcor Financial Group Inc. at and as
of June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-01-1998              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1998              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                   12,466,942               12,466,942
<RECEIVABLES>                            23,246,519               23,246,519
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                               0                        0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                             0                        0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                       6,766,363                6,766,363
<PP&E>                                   10,712,156               10,712,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           78,766,399               78,766,399
<SHORT-TERM>                              1,846,578                1,846,578
<PAYABLES>                                1,269,690                1,269,690
<REPOS-SOLD>                                      0                        0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                               0                        0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                0                        0
<LONG-TERM>                               6,126,199                6,126,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                        0
<COMMON>                                     11,392                   11,392
<OTHER-SE>                               30,850,178               30,850,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             78,766,399               78,766,399
<TRADING-REVENUE>                           253,998                  441,646
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                        314,825                  782,605
<COMMISSIONS>                            38,830,397               77,955,223
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                     0                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                     0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          264,596                  485,340
<COMPENSATION>                           25,895,883               52,929,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,580,594                2,174,303
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                1,580,594                2,174,303
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                        0
<CHANGES>                                         0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  4,124                 (800,167)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00                    (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135763(34) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135763 

 COA: 277960 

Jackson CC: 04-000684-FH 

ROBERT PHILLIP CARICO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

 KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. Mickey Gene Mellon

215P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 15, 2016

C. Scott Holmes, Attorney at Law, for Mellon, Mickey Gene.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of June 2016."