alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

1 February 2007

Case F-142/06 R

**Francesco Bligny**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Application for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Application for interim measures – Urgency – None)

**Application:**brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mr Bligny seeks, first, suspension of the decisions of
the selection board of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to admit him to competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and, secondly, as
a provisional measure, an order for his written test in that competition to be corrected.

**Held:**The application for interim measures is rejected. The costs are reserved.

**Summary**

*Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage*

*(Art. 24 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 734 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 734

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of the 
    tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24 percent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2007

  Mr. Specter 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 reduce the rate of the 
    tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24 percent.

    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 ``AMT Rate Reduction Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN RATE OF TENTATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR NONCORPORATE 
              TAXPAYERS.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 55(b)(1)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to noncorporate taxpayers) is amended to 
read as follows:
                            ``(i) In general.--In the case of a 
                        taxpayer other than a corporation, the 
                        tentative minimum tax for the taxable year is--
                                    ``(I) 24 percent of the taxable 
                                excess, reduced by
                                    ``(II) the alternative minimum tax 
                                foreign tax credit for the taxable 
                                year.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 55(b)(1) of 
such Code is amended by striking clause (iii).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 07-50851

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CESAR DAVID MARQUEZ-GARCIA, also known as Cesar Marquez-Garcia

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No.3:06-CR-1888-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Cesar David Marquez-Garcia

(Marquez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Marquez has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Ralph M. Amato, Chief Financial Officer of BoysToys.com, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

(1) the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), to which this Statement is filed as an exhibit, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|Dated:  November 9, 2005 | By:  /s/ Ralph M. Amato
         Ralph M. Amato
         Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

(2004/C 65 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2881/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Bicycle theft

Every year, enormous numbers of bicycles are stolen. Many are stolen for individual use, but large numbers of bicycles are also fed into stolen-goods circuits, some of which operate on an international scale.

Belgian research shows that bicycle theft is the ‘daily bread’ of criminals who are involved in more serious crime. Bicycle theft is the most widespread form of crime in Europe.

Plans which the bicycle industry wanted to develop in response to requests from consumer associations and the European Cyclists' Federation, which involved the standardisation of serial numbers, identity chips and obligatory U-locks, have come to nought.

The Commission:

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

The Commission would like to answer the Honourable Member as follows.

Information on the theft of bicycles is available only for eight Member States. Of those eight, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden show the largest number of stolen bicycles per capita.

Although there does not exist hard evidence about where the stolen bicycles wind up, there are clear indications that most stolen bicycles are sold to private citizens, either directly or on so-called ‘fencing’ markets.

There do not seem to be indications that the attractiveness of the bicycle as a sustainable mode of transport is negatively influenced by the occurrence of bicycle theft. Victim surveys show, however, that personal experience of criminal victimisation — amongst which bicycle theft — contributes to increasing the feelings of insecurity amongst the population. Feelings of insecurity have been increasing slowly but steadily across the Union between 1996 and 2002.

The theft of bicycles is largely a local, regional or national phenomenon. Effective solutions can and must therefore be taken at those levels in the Member States. What could in addition be usefully done at Union level, however, is to examine within the Union Crime Prevention Network if there are Member States with effective measures to prevent bicycle theft which could be applied in other Member States.

----
STATE v. Michelle Lynn BAILEY.

No. 166P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bailey, Michelle Lynn.

Victoria Voight, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of May 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

JACKSON, J., recused.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53025-53026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Open Meeting, Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, 
Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, FEMA announces the following committee 
meeting:
    Name: Board of Visitors (BOV) for the National Fire Academy.
    Dates of Meeting: October 7-8, 2005.
    Place: Building H, Room 300, National Emergency Training Center, 
Emmitsburg, Maryland.
    Time: October 7, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and October 8, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Proposed Agenda: Review National Fire Academy Program Activities.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public in 
the Emmitsburg commuting area with seating available on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Members of the general public who plan to 
participate in the meeting should contact the Office of the 
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 
South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 21727, (301) 447-1117, on or before 
September 26, 2005.

[[Page 53026]]

    Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available for 
public viewing in the Office of the U.S. Fire Administrator, U.S. Fire 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, 
Maryland 21727. Copies of the minutes will be available upon request 
within 60 days after the meeting.

    Dated: August 23, 2005.
R. David Paulison,
U.S. Fire Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-17635 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-17-P
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-09-00686- CV Adalber to LUNA Sr, Appellant
v . Esther P. GA LLARDO , Appellee Fr om the 341st J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CVQ- 000782-D3 Honora ble Elma T. Salinas Ender , J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 27, 2010 DI SMI SSED When appellant Adalberto L una S r. filed this appea l, he was require d to pay a $175.00 filing fee
. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § § 5 1. 20 7( b) (1 ), 51 .9 41 (a ) ( Ve rn on 20 05 ); id. §§ 51.208, 51.0051 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 09 ); T EX A S S UPREME C OU R T O RDE R R EG AR DI NG F EE S C HAR GE D I N C I V I L C AS ES I N TH E S UPREME C OU R T AND THE C O U R T S O F A PP EA L S AND B EF ORE THE J U D I CI A L P ANE L ON M UL TI DI S TR I C T L I TI GATI ON (Misc. Docket No. 07-9138, Aug . 28, 2007) § B .1.(a)
. Ap pe lla nt d id04
- 09
- 00 68 6- CV

- 2- not pay the re quired filing fee
. According ly , the cler k of this court notified appe llant by letter on October 23, 2009, that his notice of appea l w as conditionally filed and the filing f ee w as due no la ter than Novembe r 16, 2009. On Dece mber 15, 2009, when the fee rema ined unpaid, this court orde red that appellant m u s t , n o t later tha n Dec ember

28, 2009, either ( 1) pay

the applica

ble filing fee or (2) pr ovide writt en proof to this court that he/she is indigent or othe rwise e x cused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure from pay ing the fee
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 (“Aparty who is not excused by

statute or these rules fr om pay ing costs must pay – at t he time an item is prese nted for filing – w hateve r fe es ar e re quired by statute or Supreme Court order. Th e ap p el l at e cour t may enfor ce this rule by

any order that is just.”)
. The court advised appellant that if he fa iled to respond satisfac torily

within the time ordere d, the appe al would be dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3. The filing fee has not bee n paid, and appellant has not otherwise r esponded to our D ece mber 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 o r d e r . We theref ore order this appeal dismissed for wa nt of prosec ution. W e fur ther order appellant to bea

r all costs of this appe al.

PER C URI AM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.F., 

A CHILD

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00215-CV

Appeal from the

383rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2003AG5989) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file the notice

of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1;

Restrepo v. First Nat’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.--

El Paso 1995, no writ)(applying former TEX.R.APP.P. 40(a)(1)). When no motion for new trial

or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after the judgment is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1; Restrepo, 892 S.W.2d at 238.

An untimely notice of appeal will be considered timely if it is filed within fifteen days after the

due date and includes a reasonable explanation for the appellant’s failure to file on the due date.

See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Vergburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

The judgment in this case was signed March 30, 2008. Appellant’s notice of appeal was

therefore due to be filed on April 29, 2008. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until June 9,
-2-

2008. Therefore Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. By letter dated June 9, 2008,

the clerk of the Court notified Appellant of our intent to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction

because the appeal had not been timely perfected. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3. On July 1, 2008, the

Court received a document from Appellant which describes Appellant’s concerns over the

disposition of his case in the trial court, but does not address his untimely notice of appeal, and

does not express grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction.

September 18, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                            2688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    29423
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1038
<INVENTORY>                                      29458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 63532
<PP&E>                                          174291
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  239444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            42669
<BONDS>                                         306335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      16509
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (125490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    239444
<SALES>                                         226953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           180249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   210754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   325
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               32237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14411)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                              State of Incorporation
<S>                                             <C>
Berry Plastics Corporation                      Delaware
Berry Iowa Corporation                          Delaware
PackerWare Corporation                          Delaware
Knight Plastics, Inc.                           Delaware
Berry Sterling Corporation                      Delaware
Berry Plastics Design Corporation               Delaware
Poly-Seal Corporation                           Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation II       Delaware
Venture Packaging, Inc.                         Delaware
Venture Packaging Midwest, Inc.                 Delaware
Berry Plastics Technical Services, Inc.         Delaware
NIM Holdings Limited                            England and Wales
Berry Plastics U.K. Limited                     England and Wales
Norwich Acquisition Limited                     England and Wales
CPI Holding Corporation                         Delaware
Cardinal Packaging, Inc.                        Ohio
AeroCon, Inc.                                   Delaware
Berry Tri-Plas Corporation                      Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation III      Delaware
CBP Holdings S.r.l.                             Italy
Capsol S.p.a.                                   Italy
Ociesse S.r.l.                                  Italy
Pescor Inc.                                     Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation IV       Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation V        Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VI       Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VII      Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VIII     Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation IX       Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation X        Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XI       Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XII      Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XIII     Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XIV, LLC Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XV, LLC  Delaware
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136146 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136146 

 COA: 280256 

Wayne CC: 06-005613

EARL MCKINLEY CHADWICK, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

d0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE v. Reginald U. FULLARD.

No. 42P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Reginald Fullard, for Fullard, Reginald U.

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

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Defendant to Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. John Joseph CARVALHO, II.

No. 369A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Carvalho, John Joseph (II).

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th of November 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 State of NC, 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 17th of March 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 10th of November 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136240 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136240 

 COA: 280570 

Oakland CC: 2002-185952-FC 

FREEZEL JONES, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

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