alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010148EN.01005201.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/52

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Matos Martins v Commission

(Case F-2/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Members of the contract staff - Call for expression of interest - Selection procedure - Pre-selection tests - Access to documents)

2010/C 148/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: José Carlos Matos Martins (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annul, first, the decision of EPSO of 27 February 2006 laying down the results of pre-selection tests for members of the contract staff (EU-25), secondly, the decision not to register the applicant on the database of candidates who had successfully completed those tests and, thirdly, the consequences of the selection procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Matos Martins to bear his own costs, except the costs of accommodation and travel incurred as a result of the consultation of documents by his lawyer on 30 March, 1 April and 21 July 2009 in the premises of the Registry of the Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Matos Martins to bear his own costs, except the costs of accommodation and travel incurred as a result of the consultation of documents by his lawyer on 30 March, 1 April and 21 July 2009 in the premises of the Registry of the Tribunal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Matos Martins referred to in paragraph 2 above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Matos Martins referred to in paragraph 2 above.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 43.

1

---
# C_2009205EN.01003303.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Ristic and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/07) (1)

1

(Animal Health - Protective measures - Decision 2007/362/EC - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Principle of proportionality - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty of care - Right to property and right to carry on economic activity)

2009/C 205/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ristic AG (Burgthann, Germany); Piratic Meeresfrüchte Import GmbH (Burgthann, Germany); Prime Catch Seafood GmbH (Burgthann, Germany); and Rainbow Export Processing, SA (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Szmytkowska, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/362/EC of 16 May 2007 amending Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18), and, second, application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Ristic AG, Piratic Meeresfrüchte Import GmbH, Prime Catch Seafood GmbH and Rainbow Export Processing, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ristic AG, Piratic Meeresfrüchte Import GmbH, Prime Catch Seafood GmbH and Rainbow Export Processing, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01001902.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/19

---

Appeal brought on 13 December 2006 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-440/05 Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament

(Case C-502/06 P)

(2008/C 22/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings

By order of 21 November 2007 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
1 Order entered October 21, 2016. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01188-CV IN RE DERRICK LYNN JOHNSON, Relator Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1655027 

### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP HoldingCorp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 26, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David W.Bullock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: October 5, 2007
| By:    | **/s/  David W. Bullock**         |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | **David  W. Bullock**             |   |
|   | **Executive  Vice President and** |   |
|   | **Chief  Financial Officer**      |   |
|   | **Principal  Financial Officer**  |   |

 

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3798 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3798

To repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
  for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2013

Mr. DesJarlais introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
  for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND RETAINER PAY 
              AMOUNTS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER AGE 
              62.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is 
hereby repealed, and the provisions of law amended by such section are 
restored as if such section had never been enacted.
    (b) Offset.--Section 4002(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u-11(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2017'' and inserting 
        ``2014'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7);
            (3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(3) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, $0;
            ``(4) for each of fiscal years 2018 and 2019, $750,000,000;
            ``(5) for each of fiscal years 2020 and 2021, 
        $1,000,000,000;
            ``(6) for fiscal year 2022, $1,300,000,000; and''; and
            (4) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``2022'' and inserting ``2023''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             McLeodUSA Incorporated

           COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                   (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                                                 1999        1998        1997
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
Computation of weighted average number of Common shares outstanding:
                                                                                  <S>          <C>          <C>
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
      Beginning of the period (A)                                                 127.4       123.6        72.3
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
      Beginning of the period (B)
                                                                                               --          31.3
                                                                                                            --
Weighted average number of shares issued during
      the period (A)                                                               20.3         2.0         6.3


Weighted average number of shares reissued from the
      Treasury during the period
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
Weighted average number of common shares and
      Common equivalent shares                                                    147.7       125.6       109.9
                                                                             ==========  ==========  ==========

Net loss applicable to common shares                                         $    (79.9) $   (124.9) $   (238.0)
                                                                             ==========  ==========  ==========

Loss per common share                                                        $    (0.73) $    (0.99)$     (1.61)
                                                                             ==========  ==========  ==========

</TABLE>

 (A)   All shares have been adjusted to give effect to the two-for-one
       stock split effected in the form of a stock dividend effective
       July 26, 1999.

 (B)   The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible
       on a one-for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder
       into Class A common stock. As of June 30, 1997, all shares of
       Class B common stock had been converted into shares of Class A
       common stock.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1074 CA 11-00176**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

JUSTINE THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

MICHAEL COOPER, ESQ., STEPHEN BARNES, ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE BARNES FIRM AS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO CELLINO & BARNES, ROSS CELLINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTNER IN THE LAW FIRM OF CELLINO & BARNES AND CELLINO & BARNES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

WILLIAMS & RUDDEROW, PLLC, SYRACUSE (MICHELLE ELLSWORTH RUDDEROW OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (ELLEN B. STURM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), entered October 14, 2010. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.31


                                PROMISSORY NOTE

 
$1,050,000                                                     February 11, 1997


     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars, payable on demand with interest at
the rate of prime per annum from the date of this Promissory Note.   This
Promissory Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Amounts due under
this Promissory Note from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest
lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note.  It is
further expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of
an attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through
the Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.

     MAKER:                          /s/ Douglas Theodore
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    By: Douglas Theodore for
                                    Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Simuel v. Stephens, et al.

491P02-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Dontez L. Simuel, Pro se.

Ms. Laura Edwards Parker, Assistant Attorney General, For Stephens, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of April 2016 by Plaintiff for Writ of Prohibition:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4002 

To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 

at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

Mr. MULLIN (for himself, Mr. COLE, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe 

of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORA4 TION. 

5 The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to sur6 render the charter of incorporation issued to that tribe 

7 and ratified by its members on June 1, 1940, pursuant 

8 to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et seq.; com9 monly known as the ‘‘Oklahoma Welfare Act’’), is hereby 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4002 IH

1 accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby re2 voked. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00186-CR

No. 10-08-00187-CR

NICHOLAS RASHAUN ALEXANDER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2008-86-C2 and 2008-812-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nicholas Rashaun Alexander pled guilty to evading arrest or detention using a 

vehicle (10-08-00186-CR) and possession with the intent to deliver a controlled 

substance (10-08-00187-CR). He appealed both convictions. He waived his right to 

appeal both convictions. Further, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s 

right of appeal which indicates Alexander has no right to appeal either conviction.

In a letter dated July 14, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified Alexander that his 

appeals were subject to dismissal because it appeared from the record that Alexander 
Alexander v. State Page 2

waived his right to appeal and the certification of defendant’s right of appeal indicated 

that he had no right of appeal either conviction. The Clerk also warned Alexander that 

his appeals could be dismissed unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a 

response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeals. More than 21 days 

have passed and Alexander has not filed a response.

Accordingly, his appeals are dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 25.2(d). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 24, 2008

Do not publish 

[CR25]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3944 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year taxfree distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS 

4 FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS FOR 

5 CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (F) of section 

7 408(d)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘De9 cember 31, 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3944 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to distributions made in taxable 

3 years beginning after December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. Dominick Devon McLean, Defendant.

No. COA16-158

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
In the Matter of: D.T.N.A.

No. COA16-542

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130702 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. DARCY A. DIOT, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130702 

 COA: 264781 
 WCAC: 04-000028 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BROOKS 

REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2006 

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

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part the prior decisions of the worker’s 

compensation tribunals and we REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new 

hearing regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits for the 

closed period from July 17, 2002 to March 25, 2003, consistent with this Court’s 

decisions in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 (2008), and Robertson v 

DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732 (2002). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order vacating in part the decisions of the workers’ 

compensation tribunals and remanding this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new 

hearing regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits for the 

closed period from July 17, 2002, to March 25, 2003, consistent with this Court’s 

decisions in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 (2008), Robertson v DaimlerChrysler 

Corp, 465 Mich 732 (2002), and Gardner v Van Buren Public Schools, 445 Mich 23 

(1994). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, I vote to 

grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the 

correct decision in Stokes. 

0923 

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 26, 2008 

Clerk
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange      Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition      and result of operations of theCompany. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      June 28, 2010 | By:                                                                                                       | /s/ Glenn Estrella |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                     | Glenn      Estrella                                                                                                 |
|                     | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (PrincipalExecutive,      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

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

NO. 03-08-00380-CV

Alberto Carvajal, Appellant

v.

Sunset Logistics, Inc. and Dillon Resources, Inc., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

NO. 07-737-C277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Alberto Carvajal, acting pro se, no longer wishes to pursue his appeal and has filed

a motion to dismiss. This Court has confirmed that counsel for appellee does not oppose the motion.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 18, 2008