alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Ryanair v Commission**

**(Case T-442/07)**

State aid – Aviation sector – Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana – Action for failure to act – Failure by the Commission to define its position – Obligation to act

1.                     *Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request – Letter of formal notice
addressed to the Commission listing and complaining of the existence of various aid measures incompatible with the common
market – Admissibility (Arts 87 EC, 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 22-26, 41)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid
– Obligation either to inform the party concerned where the grounds are insufficient, or to adopt a decision at the conclusion
of the preliminary phase of the investigation – Failure to act (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 10(1)
and 20(2)) (see paras 28-30, 37-38, 50-52, 67-68)*

3.                     *State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly
unlawful aid – No formal requirements for lodging a complaint (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art.
10(1)) (see paras 32-34)*

4.                     *Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid
– Conditions – Existence of a complaint – Allegedly unlawful character of the aid measures in question having to be apparent
from the information supplied by the party concerned (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1)) (see paras
45-47, 62-64, 74-76)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs. |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED, D/B/A

PROVIDENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

 Appellant,

v.

BARBARA RIOFRIO,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-07-00264-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. Six

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2007-337)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant represents to the Court that the parties have reached a settlement

agreement in the underlying case and therefore it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Appellee

has not objected to the motion, and there is no indication that dismissal would prevent Appellee from

seeking any relief to which she would otherwise be entitled. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We

therefore grant Appellant’s motion, and dismiss the appeal pursuant to the parties’ settlement

agreement. As the motion does not indicate the parties have agreed otherwise, costs will be taxed

against Appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice

October 9, 2008

Before McClure, J., Carr, J., and Gomez, Judge

Gomez, Judge, sitting by assignment
No. WR-75,795-04 

### \ InThe Court of Criminal Appeals Austin, Texas COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### JAN 2 32015 Ex Parte § 

## RandolphLeeNobles § TheStateofAggft&gosta,Clerk
vs. §



### From Appeal No. WR-75,795-04 Trial Cause No. 10-03-048-CRW-D Wilson County

Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review


### To TheHonorable Judges of the Court ofCriminal Appeals:
Comes now, Randolph LeeNobles, Petitioner, and files this Motion for an Extension of 25 days in which to file a Petition 

### for DiscretionaryReview. In support of this motion, Appellant shows the Court the following:

I. The Petitioner was convicted in the 218th District Court at Wilson County, Texas, of the offense of Arson in Cause No. 

### 10-03-00048-CRW-D, styled State ofTexas vs. Randolph Lee Nobles. The Petitioner appealed to the Court ofAppeals, 4th Supreme 

### Judicial District. The case was affirmed onDecember 17, 2014.

II. The present deadline for filing the Petition for Discretion1.ary Review is January 17, 2015. Petitioner timely requested an 

### extension of time prior to this request on January 5, 2015, but was rejected for not being presented in proper form. Petitioner is illiterate and amends this Motion for Extension of Time and 

### resubmits it. Petitioner prays the Court will accept it even 

### though it is nowuntimely. Petitionfor Discretionary Review has 

### alreadybeen sent to the Court as of January 21, 2015. Petitioner hadrequested extension to January 31, 2015, andnowrequests subsequent amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition 

### for DiscretionaryReviewbeuntil February 10, 2015, since the Petition has been sent and may be returned prior to this motion being granted.
Prayer 

### Wherefore, Petitioner prays this Court grant this motion and 

### extend the deadline for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review in CaseNo. WR-75,795-04 to February 10, 2015.

Randolph Lee/ftobles Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-ID No. 01686000

Certificate of Service I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review has been forwarded by U. S. Mail, postage paid, First Class, to theAttorney for State, Rena Pena, at 

### 1327 3rd St, Floresville, Texas 78114, on this the 22 day of January, 2015. 

# 'lA^ Randolph Lee Nobles Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-ID No. 01686000

2.Certification I, Randolph Lee Nobles, TDCJ-ID No. 01686000, being presently incarcerated in the Sanders Estes Unit of TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Private Facility, in Johnson County, Texas, 

### verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
. Executed on this the 22 day of January, 2015.

Randolph Lee Nobles Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-ID N6. 01686000
# C_2008022EN.01005801.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/58

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2007 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)

(Case F-3/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 22/112)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 43.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**I, Richard Pyle, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town Sports International Holdings,Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By:                          /s/ Richard Pyle    Richard Pyle    Chief Financial Officer   Date: November 1, 2007
27
State of North Carolina v. Derrick Dewayne Wallace

No. 228P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Ms. Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, For Wallace, Derrick Dewayne.

Mr. Scott T. Slusser, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 14th of June 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following *521order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of June 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."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00675

- CV

Tom RETZLAFF

, Appellant

v.

Philip R. KLEIN , Klein Investigations & Consulting and James W. Landess, Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 17145 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s Third Emergency Motion Requesting Enforcement of the Stay Order and for Sanctions or in the Alternative Request for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. All proceedings in the trial court remain STAYED pending disposition of this appeal.

____ _____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of October, 20 16

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Official Journal L 97/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.097.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 97 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 553 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.097.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 97

English edition

Legislation

Volume 553 April 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2012/179/EU |
| | * | Decision No 1/2011 of the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 21 October 2011 on certain aspects of government procurement | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2012/179/EU

*

Decision No 1/2011 of the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 21 October 2011 on certain aspects of government procurement

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 



 


INFORMAL AGREEMENT WITH COMPANY OFFICERS








Michael Hay and Jake Martin, both directors and officers of the company, have verbally agreed that in the event that the Company requires funds to complete the registration process or does not generate sufficient revenues, to loan the Company sufficient funds.







Because there are no agreed upon terms for the repayment, the loans, if and when made should be considered payable on demand.
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES

514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 14, 2017

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Eric J. Zogry, Juvenile Defender, Marsha L. Levick, Attorney at Law, for Juvenile Law Center.

Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research, Brent Ducharme, Attorney at Law, Allen Buansi, Attorney at Law, K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, Peggy Nicholson, Attorney at Law, for Senator Angela Bryant, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of June 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of June 2017."

Plaintiff-Appellee shall have up to and including the 19th day of July 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 

136433 

MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL 

COUNCIL and PUBLIC INTEREST 

RESEARCH GROUP,

Appellants, 

v 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION and CONSUMERS 

ENERGY COMPANY, 

Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

 SC: 136433 

 COA: 264860 

MPSC: U-013917 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 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. 

l0916 

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 19, 2008 

 Clerk
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3883 

To require the President to implement the recommendations of the President’s 

Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select 

Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the 

Committees on the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, Armed 

Services, Foreign Affairs, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the President to implement the recommendations 

of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and 

Communications Technologies. 

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 ‘‘Big Brother Is Not 

5 Watching You Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3883 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDA2 TIONS. 

3 (a) REQUIRED ACTION.—The President and all Exec4 utive Departments and Independent Agencies shall take 

5 all such actions, including all necessary rulemaking, need6 ed to implement the 46 enumerated recommendations of 

7 the report entitled ‘‘Liberty and Security in a Changing 

8 World’’ issued on December 12, 2013, by the President’s 

9 Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Tech10 nologies. 

11 (b) GRANT OF AUTHORITY.—The President, Execu12 tive Departments, and Independent Agencies are granted 

13 all statutory authority necessary and proper to implement 

14 the recommendations referred to in subsection (a). 

15 SEC. 3. DEADLINES. 

16 (a) RULEMAKING.—All rulemaking originated pursu17 ant to section 1 of this Act shall be concluded within one 

18 year of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (b) EXECUTIVE ORDERS.—All Executive orders nec20 essary to accomplish the requirements of section 1 of this 

21 Act shall be issued within six months of the enactment 

22 of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed Ma y 2 3 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____



### No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 14 8

- C V

_____ _ _____



### IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 29 th District Court

Palo Pinto County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C48197

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

Appellant ha s filed in this court a m otion to withdraw h is notice of appeal

. In

the motion, Appellant requests that his notice of appeal be withdrawn immediately

,

and he asks this court to dismiss t his appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

Ma y 23 , 2019 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
##### 



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
    /S/ Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.

Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerAugust 8, 2006
 The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to
be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
In the MATTER OF: J.A.M.

No. 7PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Johnson, Jasmine.

Christopher C. Peace, Attorney at Law, Keith S. Smith, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Caroline P. Mackie, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for GAL.

Jacob E. Setzer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Moses, Travis.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 9th of January 2017 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 8th of June 2017."

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).
State of North Carolina v. Dartanya Levon Eaton

No. 138P12-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Eaton, Dartanya Levon

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of February 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:

*505"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT ALLEN TRIBBLE, JR.

, Appellant,

v.

THEODORE ROODHOF, Individually and Professionally; and BRUCE H. COLTON, State Attorney For The Nineteenth Judicial Circuit

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 88

[ July 25, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; William Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16000499CAAXMX

.

Robert Allen Tribble, Jr., Stuart, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chris topher M. Sutter, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY
, JJ., and N UTT

, J AMES , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.