alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009069EN.01000902.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-492/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/21/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Definition of subscriber)

(2009/C 69/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 2(k) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Definition of subscriber.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.01**
**Quintiles Transnational Corp. andSubsidiaries****Certification Pursuant To****18 U.S.C. Section 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant To****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
     In connection with the Annual Report of QuintilesTransnational Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2003, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dennis B. Gillings, ExecutiveChairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,to my knowledge, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ DENNIS B. GILLINGS      Dennis B. Gillings     Executive Chairman and     Chief Executive Officer      Date March 1, 2004    
     This certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed“filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shallnot be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Companyunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or afterthe date of this Report, irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
     A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other documents authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
State of North Carolina v. Shamele Collins

No. 66A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 23, 2016

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Douglas W. Corkhill, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Erik R. Zimmerman, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court based upon a dissent at the Court of Appeals. *State v. Collins* , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 782 S.E.2d 350, 360-62 (2016). The majority at the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, concluding, *inter alia* , that "defendant failed to raise the timing of [the police officer's] observation of powder on the floor" before the trial court. *Id.* at ----, 782 S.E.2d at 358. We agree that defendant failed to preserve his timing argument for appeal because he did not raise this argument before the trial court. *See**State v. Eason* , 328 N.C. 409, 420, 402 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1991) ("In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.") (citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(b) ) (recodified 2009 as N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) ). We therefore modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals solely on this ground. The remaining issue addressed in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning defendant's right to be present at sentencing is unchallenged and unaffected by our decision.

MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135548 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROY A. REDDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135548 

 COA: 278673 

WCAC: 06-000079 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 

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

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

t0430 

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. 

May 7, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1000

GETENET GEBRE-SELASSIE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,

Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jamie M. Dowd, Office

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Because we agree that Gebre-Selassie’s motion to reopen is

untimely, we decline to address the Board’s alternate finding that

the motion would be denied on its merits. To the extent, however,

that Gebre-Selassie argues that his attorney’s ineffective

assistance prevented him from timely filing his motion to reopen

and requests equitable tolling on this ground, we note that the

Board did grant him the benefit of equitable tolling. Moreover,

his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is foreclosed by our

recent holding in Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788, 796-99 (4th Cir.

2008) (holding that there is no constitutional right under the

Fifth Amendment to effective assistance of counsel in removal

proceedings).

2

PER CURIAM:

Getenet Gebre-Selassie, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We

have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the

Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board.*

 See In re: GebreSelassie (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order 

September 19, 2008 

136407 

ADRIAN ENERGY ASSOCIATION, L.L.C., 

CADILLAC RENEWABLE ENERGY, L.L.C., 

GENESEE POWER STATION, L.P., 

GRAYLING GENERATION STATION, L.P., 

HILLMAN POWER COMPANY, L.L.C.,

TES FILER CITY STATION, L.P., VIKING 

ENERGY OF LINCOLN, INC., and VIKING 

ENERGY OF MCBAIN, INC.,

Appellants, 

v 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION, CONSUMERS ENERGY 

COMPANY, MIDLAND COGENERATION 

VENTURE, L.P., and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

 SC: 136407 

 COA: 261718 

MPSC: U-013917 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 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. 

l0916 

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 19, 2008 

 Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14807

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00286-CR-CG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

GEARY HILL, 

a.k.a. Gary Hill, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 10, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Gregory Hughes, appointed appellate counsel for Geary Hill, has
2

moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hill’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00097-CV

______________________________

IN RE: BILLY RAY JOHNSON BY AND 

THROUGH NEXT FRIEND LUE WILSON 

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Counsel has filed a petition asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against Judge John

Ovard, Administrative Judge of the First Administrative Region, in Dallas, Texas. In the petition,

counsel complains because Ovard did not direct that a hearing be held on a motion that they filed

seeking to recuse a district judge.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or

county court in the court of appeals district." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004).

Dallas County is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and Ovard is not a judge of a

district or county court within our district. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.201(g). We have no

jurisdiction over this petition.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 9, 2008

Date Decided: September 10, 2008
1400.

#### Collins *v.*The State.

Accusation of cheating, etc., from city court of Miller county— Judge Bush. September 8, 1908.

Submitted October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*William I. Geer,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Stapleton, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

This case is controlled by *Mulkey*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*521 (57 S. E. 1022). *Judgment reversed.*
In the Matter of K.J.B.

No. COA16-159.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
State of North Carolina v. Sylvia Dyson Sprinkle

No. 142P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

*24Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Sprinkle, Sylvia Dyson.

James R. Glover, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill.

Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of April 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Oakland McCULLOCH.

No. 24P16.

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.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 21st of January 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 17th of March 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of January 2016 by State of NC 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 17th of March 2016."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10907

CHARLES FREEMAN; ROSALYN BROWN Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

versus

CITY OF DALLAS Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

- - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

- - - - - ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion August 18, 1999, 5 Cir., 1999,

_____ F.3d

____ ) (January 10, 2000)
Before KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES,

SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The
Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
EXHIBIT
      32.1








The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such
      officer’s knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002:





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on July 14, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








July
                14, 2006
            /s/
                Michael L. SawyerMichael
                L. SawyerChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Robert B. EastepRobert
                B. EastepChief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission upon request. This certification accompanies the Report
      and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the
      Report.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 meeting. 

The meeting 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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, IAIMS.                     

*Date:*                         March 11, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         1 pm. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Hua-Chuan Sim, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1832  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18788]



[[Page 55453]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34746]


Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc.--Acquisition Exemption--Rail 
Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc. (K&O), a Class III rail carrier, 
has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 
acquire (by purchase) from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) a 27-
mile rail line between milepost 485.0 at Newton, KS, and milepost 
512.0, at McPherson, KS. K&O has leased and operated the line under an 
agreement with UP since September 2002.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc.--Lease Exemption--Union 
Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No. 34232 (STB served 
Oct. 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    K&O certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in K&O becoming a Class II or Class I 
rail carrier. K&O also states that its current annual revenues exceed 
$5 million. This triggers the 60-day advance labor notice requirement 
at 49 CFR 1150.42(e). However, K&O requested a waiver of that 
requirement which was granted by the Board in a decision in this 
proceeding served on September 15, 2005.
    As a result of the grant of the waiver, the earliest this 
transaction could have been consummated was on or after September 15, 
2005, the service date of the waiver decision, because the Board's 
grant of the waiver had the effect of making the exemption effective on 
September 15, 2005.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34746, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball 
Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 15, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18788 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P