alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Slip Op. 08-91
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DONALD C. POGUE

DURFEY, gt al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Court No. 06-00316

UNITED STATES SEC’Y OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendant.

NT
Upon consideration of | Second Redetermination on Remand and

Plaintiffs’ Comments on the Second Redetermination on Remand, it is hereby

Lerner

ORDERED that Defendant’s Second Redetermination on Remand, concluding
that Plaintiffs qualify for Trade Adjustment Assistance cash benefits in the amount of
$9,093.80, is affirmed; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant direct payment to Plaintiffs in the amount of
$9,093.80, _ _—

/S/ Donald C. Pogue

Judge

4

Dated: G ? , 2008
New York, NY
In the Matter of A.A.R. & A.L.S.

No. COA15-962.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 33 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Digitalisation of historical databases

The e-learning framework needs to be compatible between countries and available online. Will the Commission therefore extend to accession countries the assistance available to Member States to create digital records of historical databases?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The eLearning Initiative and its eLearning Action Plan do not offer assistance to Member States to create digital records of databases.

The Commission does not currently fund specifically the creation of digital records of historical databases as this is considered to be a matter for initiatives at the national level. Under the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme has, however, provided incentives for coordination of digitisation work and the development of digitisation systems and services. Indeed, the IST Minerva project managed under the Cultural Heritage component of programme, provides a framework for the European cultural ministries to coordinate digitisation results and, as such, is a useful source of evolving information in the area. It provides assistance for the exchange of best practice between the 15 Member States and acts as a forum for reviewing progress in the area and planning future activities. Under the Sixth Framework Programme's strategic objective ‘Technology Enhanced Learning and Access to Cultural Heritage’, the activity could be extended to include the Accession Countries in accordance with the relevant procedures.

----
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000025 

26-JAN-2017 

10:49 AM 

SCWC-12-0000025
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

GORAN PLEHO, LLC, a Hawai'i Limited Liability Company (dba


Resorts Limousine Services), GORAN PLEHO and ANA MARIA PLEHO,


Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
 

vs.
 

DAVID W. LACY, LACY AND JACKSON, LLLC,


a Hawai'i Limited Liability Law Company,


Respondents/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
 

and
 

DRAGAN RNIC, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-12-0000025; CIV. NO. 06-1-101K)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Goran
 

Pleho, LLC, Goran Pleho, and Ana Maria Pleho’s application for
 

writ of certiorari filed on December 12, 2016, is hereby
 

accepted, and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties
 

will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 26, 2017. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Alex Sanango v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00056

- CR

Trial court case number: 1947076

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 6 of Harris County

The court reporter notified the Court that appellant ha d not made arrangements to pay for

the record. Our records indicate that the appellant is not appealing as an indigent.

We may consider an appeal without a reporter’s record if no reporter’s record is filed due

to appellant’s fault. Rule 37.3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

If No Reporter’s Record Filed Due to Appellant’s Fault. Under the following

circumstances, and if the clerk’s record has been filed, th e appellate court may

— after first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure

— consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record

for a decision. The court may do this if no reporter’s record has bee n filed

because:

(1) the appellant failed to request a reporter’s record; or

(2) (A) appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the

reporter’s fee to prepare the reporter’s record; and

(B) the appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of

costs.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

We notified appellant on February 16, 2016, that this appeal m ight be considered without

a reporter’s record unless on or before March 17, 2016 , the appellant (1) ca use d the record to be

filed in this Court by paying for the record, (2) file d proof that he made arrangements to pay thereporter’s fee to prepare the reporter’s record or (3) file d proof that he wa s entitled to proceed

without payment of costs. Appellant did not respond.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief to be filed on or before April 21, 2016

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebecca Huddle

 Acting individually

Date: April 5, 2016
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the 53 weeks ended November 2, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay M.
Meilstrup, Chief Executive 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/
      JAY M. MEILSTRUPJay
      M. Meilstrup
              Chief
      Executive OfficerJanuary
      30, 2009
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy Lee SULLIVAN.

No. COA15-343.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
State v. Rayford Lewis Burke

181A93-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2016

Mr. Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Ms. Gretchen Engel, Mr. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorneys at Law, For Burke, Rayford Lewis.

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Mr. Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Mr. Mikko Red Arrow, Assistant District Attorney, Ms. Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of June 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2016."

Ervin, J recused

Defendant shall have up to and including the 21st day of July 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# CE2004088EN.01007602.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/76

---

(2004/C 88 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/03

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Opening of a European Commission delegation in Yemen

Subject:

Although the President of the Commission gave an undertaking, during a visit to Brussels by the president of the Republic of Yemen about three years ago, that a proper Commission delegation would be opened in Sana'a in the near future, and although Yemen is a country of strategic importance for the Union from various points of view, the Union is still only represented there via the head of the delegation in Amman.

In view of the progressive consolidation of the rule of law and democratic principles in the country, demonstrated by the recent elections, which were held in a regular manner, and since these values may be strengthened and spread from Yemen throughout the region,

Does the Commission not consider that the time has come to act on the promises made and open a Commission delegation in Sanaa?

Does the Commission not consider that this would help to encourage the Yemeni authorities to continue along the road of consolidating democracy and the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

(16 September 2003)

The Commission acknowledges the remarkable progress made by Yemen in the consolidation of the rule of law and democratic principles and very much agrees that a reinforcement of the relations between the Commission and Yemen would further encourage this process of democratisation.

The Commission is considering transforming its existing office in Yemen into a sub-regional Delegation, under the responsibility of the Delegation in Amman. This proposal is at present under review within the context of the overall development of the External Service exercise. The Commission intends to submit a Communication in due course.

---
Burl Anderson Howell v. North Carolina Wayne County Department of Health and Human Services hereinafter NCWCDHHS, by and through, Resee Phelps; Lou Jones

No. 326P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2016

Burl Anderson Howell, Pro per.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, E.B. Borden Parker, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Wayne County Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 7th of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to *391the Superior Court, Office of Admin. Hearings County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of June 2016 by Petitioner for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 13th of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Office of Admin. Hearings County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of June 2016."
**EXHIBIT 34****CONSENT OF J. VOORHEES**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated November 11, 2003 entitled “Marlin Project TechnicalReport,” (the “Marlin Report”);  2. The technical report dated July 31, 2006 entitled “Penasquito FeasibilityStudy: 100,000 MTPD NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Penasquito Report”); and  3. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Penasquito Reportand the Marlin Report, and the properties described therein and the Cerro Blanco andImperial Mineral Projects.March 30, 2007/s/ J. Voorhees
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1968

In Re: JERRY FRANKLIN MEADOWS, SR.; THERESA TUCKER MEADOWS,

Debtors.

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

DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS, LLC,

Creditor - Appellant,

v.

JERRY FRANKLIN MEADOWS, SR.; THERESA TUCKER MEADOWS,

Debtors - Appellees.

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

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS,

Amicus Supporting Appellees.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. William E. Anderson,

Bankruptcy Judge. (BK-06-62050)

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

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
 2 

Stephen P. Hale, Jacob C. Zweig, HALE, DEWEY & KNIGHT, PLLC,

Memphis, Tennessee; M. Richard Epps, Sara A. John, M. RICHARD EPPS,

PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Steven L. Higgs, STEVEN L. HIGGS, PC,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. David Cox, COX LAW GROUP, PLLC,

Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Brett Weiss, Tara Twomey,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS, Olney,

Maryland, for Amicus Supporting Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 3 

PER CURIAM:

DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, appeals

directly from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling its objection

to the Chapter 13 plan filed by the debtors, Jerry Franklin

Meadows, Sr., and Theresa Tucker Meadows. The bankruptcy court

held that the bankruptcy code, as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse

Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), permits

the debtor to surrender undersecured collateral in full

satisfaction of a secured claim. In light of our decision in

Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Kenney (In re Kenney), 531 F.3d 312 (4th Cir.

2008), we vacate the bankruptcy court’s orders and remand for

further proceedings consistent with Kenney.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2000 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statements of Income for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2000 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          25,704
<SECURITIES>                                    61,402
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,722
<PP&E>                                           6,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,617
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,019
<SALES>                                         24,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,875
<CGS>                                            8,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41132 Conference Calendar

GASPAR GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-542

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gaspar Garcia, federal prisoner # 64529-079, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Garcia’s application challenged the validity of his sentence, his challenge should be brought only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless he made a showing that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided an inadequate and ineffective remedy. See Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Garcia fails to make this necessary showing with his argument that,No. 00-41132 -2- because Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), was rendered after he had filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and because the stringent requirements for filing successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions would prevent him from raising a challenge to his sentence based on Apprendi in a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, it is in effect an inadequate remedy. This argument is without merit. The Apprendi decision is limited to facts that increase a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum. Id. , 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63. Because Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana, the maximum sentence was life in prison. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). His sentence of 151 months is below the statutory maximum. Apprendi does not apply. The district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application is AFFIRMED.
* 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. 05-41658

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR URBINA-PEREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1339-ALL

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Urbina-Perez appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry of a deported alien in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Urbina-Perez argues that the district court erred

in imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)

based on his prior conviction for a crime of violence, a 1995 Arizona conviction

for aggravated assault on a peace officer. He contends that the statute of

conviction, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-1204(A)(5) and (C), encompasses conduct

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-41658

2

amounting to simple assault, with the sole aggravating factor being the status

of the victim as a peace officer. He contends that the offense does not qualify as

an enumerated offense under the Guidelines because the offense falls outside of

the generic, contemporary meaning of aggravated assault. 

The Government concedes that in the light of United States v. FierroReyna, 466 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2006), the district court plainly erred in applying

a 16-level enhancement pursuantto § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on Urbina-Perez’s

Arizona conviction for aggravated assault on a peace officer. Accordingly, we

vacate Urbina-Perez’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 

SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
# CE2004078EN.01010801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/108

---

(2004/C 78 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   New business formation

Subject:

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of the working population engaged in new enterprises — however defined — in each Member State, the EU as a whole, and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

At present, no regular data collection on new enterprises or the number of persons employed in new enterprises is carried out at European level. Therefore Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat have launched a harmonised data collection on ‘Business Demography’ amongst Member States. A table with first results for reference year 2000 comprising ten Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In the ten Member States for which data is available new enterprises in the market economy created roughly 1,5 million jobs, equivalent to about 2,8 % of the total number of persons employed in the market economy in these Member States. In most Member States, especially new enterprises in Construction and Business Services created a relatively large number of new jobs — 4,7 % respectively 4,5 % of the total number of persons employed in the sector. It should be noted that employment data from Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland are provided in full-time equivalents (number of persons working less than the standard working time of a full-year full-time employee are converted into full time equivalents). This should be taken into consideration when comparing data for the different countries and using the totals of the ten Member States.

Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat intend to continue this harmonised data collection among the Member States on the creation of new enterprises — with the scope of enlarging the data collection to all Member States — and, among other indicators, their impact on employment. Data on the proportion of the working population engaged in new enterprises are included in the design of the data collection. The results are planned to be included in the Structural Indicators from the 2004 Spring Report.

For the United States of America and Japan no data on the number of persons employed in new enterprises is available.

---