alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012058EN.01000702.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/7

---

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2012 — Djebel — SGPS v Commission

(Case T-422/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid scheme designed to promote modern and competitive entrepreneurial strategies - Planned aid for a commercial company in the form of a soft loan in order to help finance an investment by that company in Brazil - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market - Obligation to state reasons - Impairment of competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Equal treatment)

2012/C 58/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Djebel — SGPS SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Andrade Neves and S. Castro Caldeira, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/582/EC of 10 May 2007 on State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Portugal — Aid to Djebel (OJ 2007 L 219, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Djebel — SGPS, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Djebel — SGPS, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDDIE WRIGHT, 

Petitioner,

No. 08-73272

v. 

ORDER

D. DEXTER, Warden,

Respondent. 

Filed October 14, 2008

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher and

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district

court is denied. Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) that:

(A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional

law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not

have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying

the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have

found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

14465
Petitioner asserts that the district court should vacate his

sentence because it was imposed in violation of Cunningham

v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007). We have held that Cunningham “did not announce a new rule of constitutional law.”

Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 639 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore,

Cunningham cannot form the basis of an application for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. 

No petition for rehearing or motion for reconsideration

shall be filed or entertained in this case. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(E). 

DENIED. 

14466 WRIGHT v. DEXTER

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHIGUANG LIANG
,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

,

Respondent

. No. 15

- 71857

Agency No. A089

- 803

- 358

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted October 6 , 2020 * * Pasadena , California

Before: M. SMITH and LEE, Circuit Judges , and CARDONE
, ** * District Judge

. Zhiguang Liang , a native and citizen of China

, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of

asylum, withholding of removal

, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone , United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas , sitting by designation

. 

# FILED

OCT 19 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal

, and CAT relief for

substantial evidence

. See Silva

- Pereira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.

2016)

. Under this standard, w e m ay grant Liang’s petition only if “ the evidence not

only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it .” I d

. (citation omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to affirm the Immigration

Judge ’s adverse credibility determination, which was based on numerous

inconsistencies and implausible statements throughout Liang’s testimony. These

testimonial deficiencies , which find support in the record, undermine Liang’s core

claim that he was persecuted for practicing Christianity in China. See Shrestha v.

Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046

- 47 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although inconsistencies no

longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner ’ s claim, when an inconsistency is at

the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”) ; Rivera v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d

1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (repeated inconsistencies, “ particularly when viewed

cumulatively, deprive [a petitioner’s] claim of the requisite ‘ ring of truth ’”)

(quoting Kaur v. Gonzales , 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) ).

In the a bsence of his discredited testimony, the record lacks sufficient

evidence for Liang to establish that : ( 1 ) he “ has suffered past persecution or has a

well

- founded fear of future persecution ,” Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1185

(9th Cir. 2006) ; ( 2 ) “ i t is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution

on one of the specified grounds ” for withholding of removal, id . at 1190 (citation3

omitted) ; or ( 3 ) “ it is more likely than not that he [ ] would be tortured if removed to

the proposed country of removal ,” Go v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir.

2011) (citation omitted). The BIA thus did not err in affirming the denial of asylum

, withholding of removal, and CAT relief

.

DENIED

.
1640.

#### Shipman *v.*The State.

Conviction of adultery, from city court of Dalton — Judge Longley. December 18, 1908.

Argued February 10,

Decided February 16, 1909.

*William E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. K. McOuichen, solicitor, Sam P. Maddox,*contra.

Powell, J.

Proof of the venue is essential to conviction, in every criminal ease. *Judgment reversed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0138 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM CURTIS SMALL,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including J uly 2 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 27 2021

05/27/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0138
State of North Carolina v. Nicolas Olivares Pineda

No. 70PA16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Ms. Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Pineda, Nicolas Olivares.

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

Mr. Scott T. Stroud, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of October 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Presidential Documents 55509 

Proclamation 7933 of September 16, 2005 

National Farm Safety and Health Week, 2005 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

As stewards of our natural resources, farmers and ranchers play a crucial 

role in keeping our Nation strong. This year’s theme for National Farm 

Safety and Health Week, ‘‘Harvesting Safety and Health,’’ encourages those 

in the agriculture industry to practice and promote safe working conditions 

and reminds all Americans of the vital contributions of farmers and ranchers 

to our country. 

Our farming communities embody the American values of hard work, faith, 

love of family, and love of country. Their skill and dedication feed, clothe, 

and provide energy for Americans and others around the world. 

Agricultural workers face one of the most hazardous work environments 

in America. Farmers and ranchers operate heavy machinery, work in inclement weather, and tend livestock. Because of these risks, taking safety precautions is vital for agricultural workers. By implementing preventive measures and increasing our knowledge of first aid, we can greatly reduce many 

hazards of farm and ranch labor. Utilizing safety features and keeping children from working or playing in potentially hazardous areas also can limit 

injuries and help farmers and ranchers protect their families. 

Our farmers and ranchers help keep our Nation strong and advance the 

opportunities that come from freedom. During National Farm Safety and 

Health Week, we recognize the significant contributions of farmers and 

ranchers to our Nation and encourage the further development of work 

environments that will ensure their safety. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 18 through 

September 24, 2005, as National Farm Safety and Health Week. I call upon 

the agencies, organizations, and businesses that serve America’s agricultural 

workers to continue strengthening their commitment to promoting farm safety 

and health programs. I also urge all Americans to recognize the men and 

women cultivating our land who contribute to the vitality and prosperity 

of our Nation. 

55510 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth. 

W 

[FR Doc. 05–18977 

Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-76,016 & AP-76,017

EX PARTE ADAM ROBERTS LEWIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. B-10,598-B & B-10,599-B IN THE 173RD

DISTRICT COURT FROM HENDERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault on a peace officer and deadly conduct and sentenced to twenty years and five years

imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Lewis v. State, Nos.12-05-

345-CR & 12-05-346-CR (Tex. App. - Tyler, delivered September 29, 2006, pet. Ref’d ) 

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because put on no

evidence at the guilt phase to show that Applicant either was insane or believed that he was
LEWIS - 2

defending his home from burglars. The trial court conducted a hearing and concluded that trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to present any evidence at the guilt phase of Applicant’s trial and

that such ineffective representation prejudiced Applicant. 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to a new trial. The judgments of conviction in

Case Nos. B-10,598 & B-10,599 from the 173rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County are set

aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Henderson County to answer the

charges against him.

Delivered: October 8, 2008

Do Not Publish
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Jonathan COX, Defendant.

No. COA15-244.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SouthCrest
      Financial Group, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “ Periodic
      Report ”),
      the
      undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant
      to
      Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and
      belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      November 14 ,
      2005


/s/
                Douglas J. HerthaDouglas
                J. HerthaChief
                Financial Officer
State of North Carolina v. Matthew Devon Fields

No. 385P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Fields, Matthew Devon.

Ryan Frank Haigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
IN RE: SKINNER

277A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 28, 2016

Mr. Ira Braswell, IV, Attorney at Law, for Skinner, Mark.

Ms. Jenna F. Butler, Attorney at Law, Mr. Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Clark, Nancy Bass, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 28th of November 2016 by Respondent:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of November 2016."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 14th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARTELL WHITAKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(0:98-cr-01016-MBS-1)

Submitted: September 17, 2008 Decided: October 14, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martell Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Martell Whitaker appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States. v. Whitaker, No. 0:98-cr-01016-

MBS-1 (D.S.C. filed July 21, 2008; entered July 22, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Danielle Leigh MITCHELL.

No. COA15-821.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
State of North Carolina v. Joe Terry Wright

No. 341P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Joe Terry Wright, for Wright, Joe Terry.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2010346EN.01003903.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission

(Case T-236/07) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Clearance of accounts - 2006 Financial year - Date of application of the first subparagraph of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Binding force of a unilateral declaration by the Commission annexed to the minutes of a Coreper meeting)

2010/C 346/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by M. Lumma and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2007 L 122, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Clay FRIDAY.

No. 109P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Friday, Thomas Clay.

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney Geneal, for State of North Carolina.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of March 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

EXHIBIT 99

                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                   --------------------------------   -------------------------------
                                                         2004            2003               2004           2003
                                                     ------------    ------------       ------------   ------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>                <C>            <C>
Earnings (Loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
   Income (Loss) from continuing operations          $ (3,189,738)   $   (812,217)      $  1,226,092   $ (1,771,604)

Denominator:

   Weighted average common shares outstanding          12,238,122       8,437,589         11,197,572      8,296,608
   Effect of dilutive securities
     Conversion of preferred stock                              -               -          3,475,297              -
     Common stock equivalents from
     warrants and options                                       -               -                  -              -
                                                     ------------    ------------       ------------   ------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share      12,238,122       8,437,589         14,672,869      8,296,608
                                                     ============    ============       ============   ============
   Basic net income (loss) per common share          $      (0.26)   $      (0.10)      $       0.11   $      (0.21)
                                                     ============    ============       ============   ============
   Diluted net income (loss) per common share        $      (0.26)   $      (0.10)      $       0.08   $      (0.21)
                                                     ============    ============       ============   ============
</TABLE>

                                       18
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer 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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”),
      the undersigned as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby, certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
                and





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







/s/Leighton
      J.
      Stephenson


Name:
      Leighton J. Stephenson


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date: May
      15, 2006








41
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136858 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136858 

 COA: 277518 

Genesee CC: 06-019147-FH 

DAVID DUANE BREWER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2008 

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

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

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk