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

_________________ 

Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 

Per Curiam 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 08A332 

JENNIFER BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE 

v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY 

[October 17, 2008] 

PER CURIAM. 

On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the

Ohio Secretary of State, to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter

Registration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section

303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 

Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i).* The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the 

Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has 

filed an application to stay the TRO with JUSTICE 

STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he 

has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to 

enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether 

HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents,

however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the ques-

—————— 

*Title 42 U. S. C. §15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V) states, in

relevant part: 

“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the

State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement 

to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration

system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority

to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy

of the information provided on applications for voter registration.” 
2 BRUNNER v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY 

Per Curiam 

tion whether Congress has authorized the District Court

to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private 

litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga 

Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. 

Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant

the application for a stay and vacate the TRO. 

It is so ordered.
# C_2010113EN.01004002.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission

(Case T-190/07) (1)

1

(Financial assistance for the European citizen information programme (Prince) - Project concerning the preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools - Decision ordering reimbursement of the advance paid - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment)

2010/C 113/63

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KEK Diavlos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Chatzimichalis)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and S. Petrova, Agents, assisted by E. Politis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 465 Final of 23 February 2006 ordering the reimbursement of the advance, together with interest, paid under a contract for financial assistance, concluded under the Prince programme, for an operation entitled ‘The EURO — its genuine and essential impact on school children’ (Eurogenesis), concerning the preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KEK Diavlos to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KEK Diavlos to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6804

EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:07-cv-00509-gec-mfu)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward James Egan, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Egan has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. In addition, we deny Egan’s motions for oral argument

via video conference and for appointment of counsel and his motion

seeking remand to state court. 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. 

DISMISSED
State of North Carolina v. Jeffrey Bernard Brown, Defendant.

No. COA15-847

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

REVERSED and REMANDED.
# CE2004078EN.01079301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/793 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/793

---

(2004/C 78 E/0843)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3224/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   EC Commission proposal to replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on Drivers' Hours

Subject:

I have received several letters from charities and voluntary organisations concerned that the above new replacement regulation will not include the current exemption for ‘vehicles used as shops at local markets or for door-to-door selling or used for mobile banking, exchange or saving transactions, for worship, for the lending of books, records or cassettes, for cultural events or exhibitions and specially fitted for such uses’. They are concerned that their vehicles will not be able to comply with the financial and administrative implications of the new regulation, and will have to be withdrawn from service.

While I appreciate the importance of the new regulation, would the Commission consider reinstating the current exemption in order that voluntary organisations could continue to provide a service to the community?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

The Commission's proposal (1) seeks, amongst other things, to restrict the considerable number of exemptions, derogations, and special arrangements in the current Regulation (2) to those which are strictly necessary, thereby limiting any possible abuse. In drawing up its original proposal, the Commission was advised that this particular derogation was outdated and could be removed.

1

2

The Commission has received many similar letters from the United Kingdom concerning the need to retain this derogation for specialised Play-bus vehicles. Consultations with the United Kingdom Department of Transport have confirmed that this derogation, which the Commission proposal currently wishes to delete, is used by the United Kingdom authorities to exempt this particular charitable activity. It is noted that there are no other derogations which could cover this particular activity and so the Commission is open to taking a more flexible approach on this specific derogation in any future discussions on the proposal.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., (the “Company”) for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Harry S. Palmin, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Joanne M. Protano, Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
our knowledge, 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
results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Harry S.
      PalminHarry S.
    PalminPresident, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 15,
      2009/s/ Joanne M.
      ProtanoJoanne M.
      ProtanoChief Financial Officer (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Date: May 15,
      2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,921
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              95
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     44,355
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,530
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,594
<LOANS>                                        175,229
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,381
<DEPOSITS>                                     224,049
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,174
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,854
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,386
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 254,381
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,337
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,812
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   353
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,502
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,389
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,571
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,931
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      648
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (67)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,565
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,233
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                        575
<LOANS-PAST>                                       123
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,618
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      508
<RECOVERIES>                                        78
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,836
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,452
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            384
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 288/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 288 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 599 August 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 288

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 599 August 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 288/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2016/C 288/02 | EU-28 ethyl alcohol balance sheet for 2015 (Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 288/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2016/C 288/02

EU-28 ethyl alcohol balance sheet for 2015 (Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003)

(Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003)

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 288/03 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, originating in the People’s Republic of China | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 288/04 | Notice for the attention of Aslan Avgazarovich Byutukaev and Ayrat Nasimovich Vakhitov, whose names were added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1347 | 14 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 288/03

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, originating in the People’s Republic of China

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2016/C 288/04

Notice for the attention of Aslan Avgazarovich Byutukaev and Ayrat Nasimovich Vakhitov, whose names were added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1347

14

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
liberty-iac8kdillerterminat.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing


Exhibit 10.1





 


LIBERTY
MEDIA CORPORATION


LIBERTY
USA HOLDINGS, LLC


12300
Liberty Boulevard


Englewood,
CO 80112


 


 


 


 December
1, 2010


 


Mr. Barry Diller


c/o IAC/InterActiveCorp


555 West 18th Street


New York, NY  10011


 


IAC/InterActiveCorp


555 West 18th Street


New York, NY  10011


Attention:  General Counsel


 


Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is made
to (i) the Amended and Restated Governance Agreement, dated as of August 9,
2005 (as amended, the “Governance Agreement”), among IAC/InterActiveCorp
(the “Company”), Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty”) and
Mr. Barry Diller (“Diller”) and (ii) the Stock Exchange Agreement,
dated as of the date hereof (the “Exchange Agreement”), by and among
Liberty, Liberty USA Holdings, LLC, the Company and Celebrate Interactive,
Inc.  Capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the meanings
provided such terms in the Governance Agreement.   


 


The Company,
Liberty, for itself and on behalf of the members of its Stockholder Group, and
Diller each agree, and Liberty USA Holdings, LLC acknowledges and agrees, that
effective upon the consummation of the Liberty/IAC Stock Exchange (as defined
in the Exchange Agreement) contemplated by the Exchange Agreement, the
Governance Agreement is hereby terminated as to Liberty and its Stockholder
Group and will thereafter cease to be of any further force and effect as to
Liberty and the members of its Stockholder Group, and Liberty and such members
will thereafter have no rights or obligations thereunder.  


 
















 
 





If
the foregoing is consistent with your understanding, please so indicate by your
signature below, which will constitute the agreement of the parties hereto.


 


	
   

  	
  LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION

  By: /s/ Michael
  Zeisser                        
  

             
  Name: Michael Zeisser           
  

             
  Title: Senior Vice President      

   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  LIBERTY USA HOLDINGS, LLC

  By:      Liberty
  Programming Company

   LLC, its sole member and manager

  By:   LMC Capital LLC, its sole

  member and manager

  By: /s/ Michael
  Zeisser                         

              Name:
  Michael
  Zeisser            

              Title:
  Senior Vice President       

   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Accepted and Agreed:

   

   

  /s/ Barry
  Diller                 
       ____

  Barry Diller

   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  IAC/INTERACTIVECORP

   

   

  By: /s/ Gregg
  Winiarski         ____

       Name:
  Gregg Winiarski

       Title:
  Senior Vice President & General     
              
  Counsel
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 Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B. Alva Schoomer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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/ B. Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer December 23, 2008
BURGESS v. EBAY, INC., et al.

No. 69P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Albert C. Burgess, Jr., Butner, for Burgess, Albert C. (Jr.).

*740The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of January 2016 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136844 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136844 

 COA: 275655 

Wayne CC: 06-010964-01

CHARLES ALLEN MATHIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1015 

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. 

October 22, 2008 

 Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136069(42)(44) Marilyn Kelly
 

Maura D. Corrigan
 

Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

RENEE ELLIS, Stephen J. Markman,
 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136069 

 COA: 275240 

Wayne CC: 05-508314-CK

FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 25, 2008 order is 

considered, and it is GRANTED. We VACATE our order dated July 25, 2008. On 

reconsideration, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2008 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on 

December 3, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., on whether to grant the application or take other 

peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address: 

(1) whether, under the terms of the insurance policy, the defendant is not liable because, 

under the facts of this case, the insured premises were vacant or unoccupied for more 

than 60 consecutive days before the damage occurred; (2) whether the Court of Appeals 

erred in relying on Smith v Lumbermen’s Mutual Ins Co, 101 Mich App 78 (1980), 

because that case did not involve a vacancy of 60 days or more or policy language, such 

as that here, that limits coverage when the insured premises are vacant or unoccupied for 

more than 60 consecutive days; and (3) whether, regardless of the contract language, 

there is merit in the plaintiff’s allegation that the Consumer Protection Act was violated 

and that the defendant’s agent issued the policy despite knowing that the plaintiff planned 

a period of renovation at the house and, after issuing the policy, the agent never provided 

the plaintiff with a copy of the policy and then terminated the agency relationship with 

the defendant. The parties shall file supplemental briefs no later than November 21, 

2008. They should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

d1021 

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. 

October 24, 2008 

Clerk