alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008223EN.01006103.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/61

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-108/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Summary of the pleas in law in the application - No prior administrative complaint - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2008/C 223/116)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General for a period of six years starting on 1 July 2007 and, alternatively, of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to the grade LA5 for the 2004 promotion exercise following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Nijs v Court of Auditors

Nijs

Court of Auditors

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008, p. 56.

1

---
Ex10.183 May RRA 7.00-2020


Exhibit 10.183
EXECUTION VERSION




Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
May 28, 2014
The undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 6, 2014 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., relating to the 7.00% Senior Notes due 2020, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.


	
			
	ENDO VENTURES BERMUDA LIMITED

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Susan Hall

	Name:
	 
	Susan Hall

	Title:
	 
	Director
# C_2010011EN.01002401.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2009 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-376/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid to small and medium-sized enterprises - Decision requiring information to be provided concerning two State aid schemes - Commission’s monitoring powers under the fourth sentence of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001)

2010/C 11/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Möller and B. Klein, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2007) 3226 of 18 July 2007 requiring information to be provided concerning two State aid schemes coming under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles [87 EC] and [88 EC] to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33)

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 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41131

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO ARTURO RAMOS-CERDA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-648-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio Arturo RamosCerda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramos-Cerda has not filed a response.

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

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

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

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Willie James BOLDER

No. COA16-814

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

NO ERROR.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

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 Pointer Telocation Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Danny Stern, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|June 27, 2006 |  | /S/ DANNY STERN
Danny SternChief Executive Officer
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.



---

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4093 

To amend the Small Business Act to raise the prime and subcontract goals, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to raise the prime and 

subcontract goals, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Greater Opportunities 

5 for Small Business Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS PRIME AND SUBCONTRACT PAR7 TICIPATION GOALS RAISED. 

8 (a) GOALS IN SUBCONTRACTING PLANS.—Section 

9 8(d)(6)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4093 IH

1 637(d)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘percentage 

2 goals’’ the following: ‘‘of not less than 40 percent’’. 

3 (b) PRIME CONTRACTING GOALS.—Section 

4 15(g)(1)(A)(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

5 644(g)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘23 percent’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘25 percent’’. 

7 (c) DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

8 made by subsection (a) of this section shall take effect 

9 only beginning on the date on which the Administrator 

10 of the Small Business Administration has promulgated 

11 any regulations necessary, and the Federal Acquisition 

12 Regulation has been revised, to implement section 1614 

13 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

14 2014 and the amendments made by such section. 

15 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISION PERTAINING TO 

16 ACCOUNTING OF SUBCONTRACTORS. 

17 Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

18 644(g)) is amended by striking paragraph (3). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
KORNEGAY FAMILY FARMS, LLC, et al. v. CROSS CREEK SEED, INC.

187PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2016

Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Steven B. Epstein, Attorney at Law, Caitlin Goforth, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cross Creek Seed, Inc.

L. Neal Ellis, Jr., Attorney at Law, Wake Forest, J.P. Williamson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Kornegay Family Farms, LLC, et al.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of November 2016 by Defendant for Leave to File Record on Appeal:

*264"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of November 2016."
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13(a)-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
The undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 9th day of August 2007.
 /s/ Mark MorrisonMark MorrissonChief Executive Officer and Executive Director/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakChief Financial Officer
 26
The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge for the District of *

New Jersey, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0651n.06

Filed: September 4, 2007

No. 06-6325

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY CLAIR, JULIE CLAIR KRIFT, and J.

CLAIR ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NORTHERN KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT

HEALTH DISTRICT, RICK MARKSBERRY,

STEVE DEVINE, and DAVID FORTNER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

KENTUCKY

Before: BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and ACKERMAN, District Judge. 

*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Clair, Julie Clair Krift, and J. Clair Enterprises appeal the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and subsequent dismissal of their procedural and

substantive due process claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of defendants’

denial of plaintiffs’ food service application permit. 

In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that plaintiffs did not have a

constitutionally protected property right to a food-service permit for purposes of procedural and
Case No. 06-6325

Clair, et al. v. N. Ky. Indep. Health Dist., et al. 

- 2 -

substantive due process claims. Specifically, the district court concluded: (1) the Health District’s

significant degree of discretion in the permitting process foreclosed any legitimate claim of

entitlement by Clair; and (2) food-service permits were analogous to other types of property-use

permits in which courts have held that “first-time applicants for liquor or entertainment licenses do

not have a protected property interest” with respect to a due process analysis. Women’s Med. Prof’l

Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 611 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Wojcik v. City of Romulus, 257 F.3d 600,

609-10 (6 Cir. 2001)); see also Sanderson v. Vill. of Greenhills, 726 F.2d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1984) th

(holding that a first-time applicant for an amusement license did not have a legitimate claim of

entitlement to the license because the circumstances were analogous to other license/permit decisions

holding the same). 

We agree with the district court that plaintiffs – first-time applicants for a food-service permit

– did not possess a constitutionally protected property right for purposes of a due process or

substantive due process analysis, and, thus, their claims are foreclosed. Therefore, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court on this issue. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and

the applicable law, we conclude that a panel opinion further addressing this issue would not serve

a jurisprudential purpose.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427  I, Nguyen Van Thong, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;  c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control over financial reporting the occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: September 14, 2009/s/ Nguyen Van ThongNguyen Van ThongChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3765 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3765

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3765

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.
```
State of North Carolina v. Ronald Michael Thomas

No. 425P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Ronald Michael Thomas, for Thomas, Ronald Michael.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of November 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 26th of January 2017."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LOUIS D e JOY, Postmaster General; et al.

,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 55114

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

- 06975

- MWF

- JPR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Livingston appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action arising out of an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a sua s ponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Scholastic Ent.,

* 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). 

# FILED

OCT 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 55114

Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc.

, 336 F.3d 982

, 985 (9th Cir. 20 03 ) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Livingston’s action without prejudice

because Livingston failed to allege a federal question or complete diversity of

citizenship in his complaint

. See 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1332; Rivet v. Regions Bank

of La. , 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, a federal

question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Caterpillar Inc. v.

Lewis , 519 U.S. 61, 6 8 (1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of each

plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”). Contrary to

Livingston’s contention, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to United State s Postal Se rvice Publication 133.

T he district court did not err in declining to grant Livingston’s motions for

default judgment because the district court had determined that it lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the action

. See Speiser, Krause & Madole v. Ort iz , 271

F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); Tuli v. Republic of Iraq ( In re

Tuli ) , 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a district court has an

affirmative duty to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction prior to

entering default judgment

, whether or not the party against whom default judgment

is sought has appeared ).

Livingston’s motion to continue to use the mailing process (Docket Entry3 21

- 55114

No. 5 ) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. Joseph M. Romano

No. 199PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Ramano, Joseph M.

*318Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 24th of May 20 16 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of May 20 16 by State of NC 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:

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

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