alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3950 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3950

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
              credit for energy-efficient existing homes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 the 
              credit for energy-efficient existing homes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT EXISTING HOMES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25C(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009032EN.01000401.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-293/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Insufficient measures of protection)

(2009/C 32/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, D. Recchia and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Lack of protection for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) — Existence of activities which may damage the integrity of SPAs and have negative consequences for the objectives of conservation of SPAs and of the species for which the areas have been defined

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to establish and apply a coherent, specific and integrated legal regime capable of ensuring viable management and effective protection of areas designated as Special Protection Areas, in the light of the conservation objectives of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 4(4) of that directive, as amended by Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to establish and apply a coherent, specific and integrated legal regime capable of ensuring viable management and effective protection of areas designated as Special Protection Areas, in the light of the conservation objectives of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 4(4) of that directive, as amended by Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 4.8.2007.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(No. 333-86457, 333-93516, 333-60651 and 333-109406) and Form S-8 (No. 333-19197, 333-60079 and
333-60619) of Winston Hotels, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2005 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedules, managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Raleigh, NC
March 11, 2005 1
# C_2007117EN.01003502.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/35

---

Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA

(Case F-23/07)

(2007/C 117/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the Executive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for referral to the Invalidity Committee; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the Executive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for referral to the Invalidity Committee;

| — | Order the EMEA to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages for breach of administrative duty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EMEA to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages for breach of administrative duty;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of temporary staff with the EMEA, suffered an accident at work, as a result of which it is alleged that he became incapable of doing his job. On 14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request for referral to the Invalidity Committee was rejected.

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the breach of the first paragraph of Article 31 and the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-119/05 Gesner v OHIM (not yet published in the ECR).

Gesner

OHIM

---
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 of Trans Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, James K.
Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 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; and

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


/s/   JAMES K. ABCOUWER
-----------------------------------
James K. Abcouwer
Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.


<PAGE>
In the Matter of WARE, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

In the Matter of Colvard, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

Nos. COA15-909 COA15-923.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
NO. 12-08-00348-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: REGINALD SLACK,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald Slack complains that the Anderson County District Clerk has failed to respond to

a letter Slack sent her regarding a pending motion and seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial

court to answer this correspondence.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and was intended to be available “only in situations

involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other

remedies.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). For Slack to

be entitled to mandamus relief against the trial court, he must meet two requirements. First, he must

show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Id. Second, he must show that he lacks an

adequate remedy at law, such as an ordinary appeal. See id. In his mandamus petition, Slack

implicitly asserts that the trial court has a duty to answer correspondence sent to the district clerk and

has not done so, thereby abusing its discretion. However, he cites no authority for this proposition,

and we are not aware of any. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion

by failing to answer a letter addressed to the district clerk.

Even if Slack had sought mandamus relief against the district clerk, he could not prevail

under the facts presented here. A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus

against a judge of a district or county in the court of appeals district and all writs necessary to enforce

its jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). In order for a district clerk to fall
2

within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is

necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.

App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). The information furnished in this proceeding does not

demonstrate mandamus authority against the district clerk would be appropriate to enforce our

jurisdiction. Consequently, we are without authority to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the

district clerk to answer Slack’s letter.

Because Slack has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief, his petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

 SAM GRIFFITH 

 Justice

Opinion delivered September 10, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
# C_2008183EN.01000701.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

---

Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Hervé Raulin v French Republic

(Case C-454/07)

(2008/C 183/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

By order of 16 May 2008, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly had no jurisdiction to decide the action and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.

---
In re: Foreclosure of Deed of Trust from Burman Howard Maine, Betty Farmer Maine and Brandon Travis Maine, Grantor, to Pbre, Inc., Trustee, Recorded in Book 405, Page 2169, in the Ashe County Public Registry by Morrison Trustee Services, LLC, Substitute Trustee

No. 226P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Betty Farmer Maine, for Maine, Betty Farmer, et al.

W. Chris Parnell, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Morrison Trustee Services, LLC.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of June 2016 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 27th of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Ashe County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2016 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. and Gift Surplus, LLC, Plaintiffs v. SHERIFF OF ONSLOW COUNTY, North Carolina, Hans J. MILLER, in his official capacity; State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick Lloyd (Pat) McCrory, in his official capacity; Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Frank Perry, in his official capacity; Director of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Bernard W. (B.W.) Collier, II, in his official capacity; Director or Branch Head of the Alcohol Law Enforcement Branch of the State Bureau of Investigation, Mark J. Senter, in his official capacity, Defendants

No. COA16-390

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
#### Barno Khaimova et al., Appellants, v Osnat Corp., Doing Business as Daryo Restaurant, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 779]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated December 18, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in *402entertaining the defendant’s belated motion for summary judgment since good cause was shown by the defendant pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a) *(see Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence *(see Tomol v Sbarro, Inc.,*306 AD2d 461 [2003]; *Miles v Staten Theatre Group,*302 AD2d 373 [2003]; *Cribbs v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys.,*300 AD2d 339, 340 [2002]; *Becker v Cortlandt Colonial Rest.,*273 AD2d 425 [2000]). The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The proof tendered by the plaintiffs, which consisted of the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and the affidavit of an eyewitness, constituted mere speculation that the floor had been improperly waxed or polished prior to the accident. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# C_2009019EN.01000602.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-391/07) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Export refunds on agricultural products - Article 16 - Differentiated refund - Proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed - Production of a copy or photocopy of the transport documents - Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 - Granting of export refunds on cereals - Article 13 - Derogation from Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

(2009/C 19/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (OJ 1995 L 147, p. 7) — Simplified procedure: obligation to produce transport documents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1259/97 of 1 July 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operator provides proof that a quantity of at least 1 500 tonnes of cereal product has left the customs territory of the European Community on board a vessel suitable for sea transport does not release him from the obligation laid down in Article 16(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products to produce a copy or a photocopy of the transport documents.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 17, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11232

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00001-CR-7-HL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOHN PETTIFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 17, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth R. Francisco, appointed counsel for John Pettiford, has filed a
2

motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared 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 issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and

Pettiford’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
# C_2008064EN.01001402.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

---

Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-122/07) (1)

1

(Appeals - Order for removal from the Register - Discontinuance - Costs)

(2008/C 64/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurostrategies SPRL (represented by: R. Lang and S. Crosby, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Hadjiyiannis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06 Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities removing the case from the register of the Court of First Instance and ordering the applicant to pay the costs.

Eurostrategies SPRL

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Eurostrategies SPRL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Eurostrategies SPRL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
Chamberlain v. State of NC

185P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert S. Chamberlain, for Chamberlain, Robert S.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of May 2016 by Petitioner for Petition to Renounce Citizenship:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2009032EN.01003202.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)

(Case T-335/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Volker Mergel (Wiesbaden, Germany); Klaus Kampfenkel (Hofheim, Germany); Burkart Bill (Darmstadt, Germany); and Andreas Herden (Wiesbaden) (represented by: G. Friderichs, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007 (Case R 299/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Patentconsult as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Volker Mergel, Mr Klaus Kampfenkel, Mr Burkart Bill and Mr Andreas Herden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Volker Mergel, Mr Klaus Kampfenkel, Mr Burkart Bill and Mr Andreas Herden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
In the Matter of A.O.A.

No. COA15-802.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.