alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011311EN.01003501.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07) (1)

1

(Plant-protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Action for annulment - Evaluation procedure - New study and additional study - Time-limits - Concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’ - Manifest error of assessment - Draft review report - Draft directive or decision - Time-limits - Consequences of possible non-compliance - Legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Decision 1999/468/EC (‘the comitology decision’) - Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 - Article 3(3) - Plea of illegality)

2011/C 311/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex, to bear their own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and the 20 other applicants, the names of which are listed in the Annex, to bear their own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3765 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

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’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3765 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, 

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Spe6 cialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. 

11 Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. PARKER HOME CARE, LLC, ET AL.

175P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Brenda Eaddy, Assistant Attorney General, For N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Mr. Matthew W. Wolfe, Ms. Renee J. Montgomery, Mr. Robert A. Leandro, Attorneys at Law, For Parker Home Care, LLC.

Mr. Justin Richman, Mr. Richard P. Leissner, Jr., Mr. Andrew M. Walsh, Ms. Evelyn M Savage, Ms. Tracy J. Hayes, Mrs. Carol W. Hammett, Mr. James D. Wall, Attorneys at Law, For Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2016 by Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

*689"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,024

EX PARTE RAMON ENRIQUE MANZO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20030D01620 IN THE 384 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM EL PASO 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 a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

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

marijuana and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We
2

find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. 20030D01620 from the 384th Judicial District Court of El Paso

County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal

so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be

calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues.

We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file

a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: October 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00244-CR

Richard Earl Hawkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-08-200102, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MCCORMICK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the instant

appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief, was provided a copy of the

appellate record, and filed a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We agree that

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
2

the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore

affirm the judgment of conviction and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: October 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1605-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

Effective September 18, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. 

This action terminates my appointment of Ron Sherman as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison,

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-19105 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
State of North Carolina v. Prentice Lilly

No. COA16-277

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeremy Rossco BISHOP

No. 416P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2016.

Ms. Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, For Bishop, Jeremy Rossco.

Mr. L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of November 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."
State v. Phillip Vance Smith, II

407P03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Phillip Vance Smith, II, for Smith, Phillip Vance, II.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of November 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
1

... Act of May 28, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 600, § 17, sec. 263.401(d), 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2108, 2113,

repealed by Act of May 27, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 866, § 5, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1840, 1841. The former law

continued in effect for suits filed before the effective date, June 15, 2007. Act of May 27, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 866,

§ 6, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1840, 1841.

iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00174-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.D. and A.E.Z.

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-PA-00881

Honorable Joe Frazier Brown, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

AFFIRMED

Guadalupe Z. appeals from the trial court’s order rendered under Chapter 263 of the Texas

Family Code and from the court’s order determining her appeal is frivolous. See TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 263.401(d)(2) (Vernon 2002) (repealed 2007)1 (final order for child under department care

includes order naming relative as child’s managing conservator); id. § 263.405(d)(3) (Vernon Supp.

2008) (trial court shall hold hearing and determine whether appeal is frivolous). We affirm the

judgment of the trial court. 
04-07-00174-CV

-2-

Guadalupe’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel

concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); see In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders

terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept.

10, 2003, no pet.). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to Guadalupe, who was advised of her

right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Guadalupe did file a pro se brief asserting that the

evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s final order which “terminated” her parental

rights. 

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Guadalupe’s pro se brief, and we agree

the appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 13.003(b) (Vernon 2002); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(d)(3)

(incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). To the contrary, the record affirmatively

demonstrates that pursuant to a settlement agreement, Guadalupe’s visitation rights with her children

were restricted but her parental rights have not been terminated. We grant the motion to withdraw

and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85-86.

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ERIKA BARSALIA MATOS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee.

No. 4D 22

- 2678

[ March 9, 2023 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County ; Nic ole Menz , Judge; L.T. Case No. 31

- 2022

- CT

004499A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136577 & (12)(13) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136577 

 COA: 284173 

Macomb CC: 06-003806-FH 

TIMOTHY IVAN MUHN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

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

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. On remand, 

while retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals shall remand the case to the Macomb 

Circuit Court for appointment of counsel for the defendant, if determined to be indigent, 

and for the circuit court to prepare a certified concise statement of proceedings arising 

from the March 6, 2007 sentencing hearing and all postjudgment proceedings. Once the 

circuit court has prepared a proposed concise statement of proceedings, it shall serve 

copies on all parties along with a notice of hearing with the date, time, and place for 

settlement of the concise statement. Thereafter, the circuit court shall proceed in 

accordance with MCR 7.205(G)(2), (3), and (4). Upon return to the Court of Appeals, 

that court shall consider the certified concise statement of proceedings, and any further 

briefing by the parties, and shall decide whether to grant, deny, or order other relief, in 

accordance with MCR 7.205(D)(2). 

The motion to add issue and motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing 

regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are DENIED. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3861 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 

for business start-up expenditures from $5,000 to $10,000. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2014 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself, Ms. KUSTER, and Mr. MCNERNEY) 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 increase 

the deduction for business start-up expenditures from 

$5,000 to $10,000. 

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 ‘‘Reward and Encourage 

5 New Business Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS START-UP 

7 EXPENDITURES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ii) of section 

9 195(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3861 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 195(b) of 

2 such Code is amended by striking paragraph (3). 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in tax5 able years beginning after the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4032 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4032

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Texas Invasive Species Barrier 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981.

    Section 5 of Public Law 112-237 (126 Stat. 1629) is amended by 
inserting after ``zebra mussels'' the following: ``and other fish, 
wildlife, and plants present in Lake Texoma that are prohibited under 
section 3 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372) or under section 42 of title 18, 
United States Code''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4032

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, and for other purposes.
```
# C_2011113EN.01001001.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T-110/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market sharing - Effects within the common market - Concept of continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Limitation period - Fines - Proportionality - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)

2011/C 113/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Siemens (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented: initially by I. Brinker, T. Loest and C. Steinle, and subsequently by I. Brinker and C. Steinle, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Arbault and O. Weber, and subsequently by X. Lewis and R. Sauer, and lastly by R. Sauer and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Siemens to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Siemens to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
STATE v. Adam Robert JACKSON

397A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2016

Danielle Blass, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, for Jackson, Adam Robert.

Joseph A. Newsome, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of November 2016 by Defendant for Removal of Current Appellate Counsel and Reappointment of the Office of the Appellate Defender:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2016."
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1265. ERIC BILLINGS v. THE STATE.

Eric Billings pled guilty to felony murder and was sentenced to life

imprisonment. He filed a motion to correct a void sentence, which the trial court

dismissed. He thereafter filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of felony murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. 

See OCGA § 16-5-1 (c), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765)

(2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1)

(322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a

sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of

murder”). Accordingly, Billings’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 15, 2017

03/15/2017