alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008022EN.01001002.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-417/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Admissibility - Structural Funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Amendment of indicative allocations - Enforcement of the final judgment)

(2008/C 22/19)

Language of the case: italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, D. Del Gaizo and G. Albenzio, avvocati dello Stato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 Italy v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.

Italy

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ronald W. Bachli hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 11th day of August 2005.



PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES/s/ Ronald W. BachliRonald W. Bachli Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130121 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130121 

 COA: 254624 

Jackson CC: 03-000676-FC 

JEFFREY ALLEN RUSSELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

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. 

s0320 

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. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3968 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3968

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction 
 allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production 
                       activities in Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2014

 Mr. Pierluisi (for himself and Mr. Grayson) 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 extend the deduction 
 allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production 
                       activities in Puerto Rico.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME 
              ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN PUERTO 
              RICO.

    (a) In General.--Section 199(d)(8)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``first 8 taxable years'' and inserting 
        ``first 10 taxable years'', and
            (2) by striking ``January 1, 2014'' and inserting ``January 
        1, 2016''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

DUANE M. BLAKE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 1816

[November 12, 2014]

Appeal from order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Robin Lee Rosenberg

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CF012955A

.
Duane M. Blake, Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the summary denial of grounds one through five and seven of appellant’s pro se motion for post

- conviction relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. However, as to ground six, we reverse and remand with directions to grant the appellant an evidentiary hearing. See Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1999). In ground six, appellant alleged that trial counsel failed to call an available defense witness who would have testified that the victim of the shooting was pointing a firearm at appellant when he s hot his firearm, thus potentially corroborating appellant’s asserted self

- defense claim. See Morales

, 731 So. 2d at 92 ; see also Moran v. State, 750 So. 2d 132, 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Balmori v. State, 985 So. 2d 646, 650

- 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Spellers v. State, 993 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

G ROSS , C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for r ehearing.
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given a meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows: Theater (Career Development Program): October 13, 2005 by teleconference. This meeting, from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., will be closed. 

Closed meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 8, 2005, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. 

Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call (202) 682-5691. 

Dated: September 23, 2005.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. 

[FR Doc. 05-19344 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MICHAEL PIPER, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 124 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
STATE v. Dean Michael VARNER

115P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2017

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Varner, Dean Michael.

Caroline Farmer, Deputy Director, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of April 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of April 2017."
32.2



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 June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





|(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.
|      |                                                                                                                                                     
|Date: | August 18, 2008
* 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. 07-40998

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MANUEL GOMEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-251-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Manuel Gomez appeals his jury conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues

that the Government engaged in improper closing argument and that his life

sentence was unreasonable. We affirm.

We review for plain error only Gomez’s argument that the Government

engaged in improper closing argument by commenting on the credibility of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40998

2

Gomez and his wife as trial witnesses. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520

(5th Cir. 2005). In closing argument, the Government’s attorney may comment

on the credibility of a witness if he or she makes clear that the conclusion he or

she is urging the jury to draw is drawn from the evidence. United States v.

Thompson, 482 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 2007). The record establishes that the

Government’s stated credibility argument was drawn from the evidence adduced

at trial. Thus, Gomez has not demonstrated reversible plain error. 

Gomez additionally contends that the district court committed a

procedural sentencing error by failing to demonstrate on the record that it

considered his arguments in mitigation of sentence. The record, however,

establishes that the district court fully complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) and

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007), with regard to its statement

of reasons. Although it did not expressly address and reject Gomez’s arguments

concerning his age and prior criminal history, it was not required to do so. See

Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468. The district court gave extensive reasons why it

believed a Guidelines sentence was appropriate. Gomez has failed to show an

abuse of discretion with regard to the imposition of his sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
JAMESTOWN PENDER, L.P. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

No. 445P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Kenneth A. Shanklin, Attorney at Law, Matthew A. Nichols, Attorney at Law, H. Mark Hamlet, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

James M. Stanley, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, David A. Nash, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Department of Transportation.

*11Ryal W. Tayloe, Attorney at Law, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Jamestown Pender, L.P.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Attorney at Law, Wilmington.

Matthew H. Bryant, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

James R. Holland, Attorney at Law, Wilmington.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 16th of December 2016 by Defendant (Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of December 2016 by Defendant (Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel of Record and Notice of Appearance of Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
Sharron PENNEY, Employee, Plaintiff, v. UNC HOSPITALS, Employer, Self-insured, (Allied Claims Administration, Servicing Agent), Defendant.

No. COA16-1166

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

AFFIRMED.
Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Etransmedia Technology, Inc.

330A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

W. Swain Wood, Attorney at Law, Shannon R. Joseph, Attorney at Law, John T. Kivus, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Christopher Jackson, Attorney at Law, for Allscripts Healthcare, LLC.

Tracie H. Brisson, Attorney at Law, for Etransmedia Technology, Inc.

*216The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of January 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 6th day of February 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred M. Powell, Chief Financial Officer of BMP Sunstone Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my
knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ FRED M. POWELL     
|Fred M. Powell         
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2009
COUNTY OF HARNETT, Plaintiff, v. Randy D. ROGERS, Defendant.

No. COA16-757

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Roberta B. LEWIS-SOLAR and Phillip M. Solar, Petitioners, v. TOWN OF BEECH MOUNTAIN, North Carolina, Respondent.

No. COA16-321

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
Two statements were introduced, and appellant sought to suppress both. The first was

1

introduced during guilt/innocence, and the trial court made appropriate findings and conclusions on

the record. The second statement was introduced at the punishment phase and related to another

offense. When the trial court considered appellant’s motion to suppress the second statement, it

stated only that the motion was denied without explaining its conclusion. It is the second statement

with which we are concerned here.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00713-CR

Dionisio Balderas Moreno, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 07-469-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant has filed a motion to abate the appeal and to remand the cause to the trial

court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the voluntariness of a statement

given to the police. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 6 (West 2005). The State opposes 1

the motion, arguing that appellant’s issues concern his right to counsel, not the voluntariness

of the statement. 

Appellant sought to suppress his statement, arguing that it was taken in violation of

his right to counsel, which is one of the rights enumerated in article 38.22. See Tex. Code
 See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966). 2

2

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 2. Unless appellant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, the 2

statement was not admissible under article 38.22. See id. Miranda rights are intended to protect

against “inherent compulsion” generated in a custodial interrogation. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S.

412, 420 (1986). Thus, the voluntariness of the statement is implicated in appellant’s argument

related to his right to counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 2; Moran, 475 U.S. at

420-22 (in considering admissibility of statement related to waiver of right to counsel, court held that

“respondent validly waived his right to remain silent and to the presence of counsel. The

voluntariness of the waiver is not at issue.”). We grant appellant’s motion and remand the cause to

the trial court for entry of findings and conclusions regarding the voluntariness and admissibility of

appellant’s statement related to his sexual contact with a minor and introduced into evidence in the

punishment phase. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s certification shall be

tendered for filing no later than thirty days from the date of this opinion. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d), 34.5(c)(2), 37.1.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Abated

Filed: October 3, 2008

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-1658 

DARRELL BUTLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GIANT FOOD INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:07-

cv-03431-PJM)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Butler, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Banks, Eric J. Janson,

SEYFARTH & SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Butler appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Butler v.

Giant Food Inc., No. 8:07-cv-03431-PJM (D. Md. May 23, 2008). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NO. 07-08-0333-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

	______________________________

	IN RE BOBBY LEWAYNE THOMAS, RELATOR

	_________________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

		MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Relator, Bobby Lewayne Thomas, filed his Application for Writ of Mandamus on August 14, 2008, contending that the trial court failed to rule on his Motion for Requested Documents.  However, Thomas did not include in the appendix to his application a “certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.”  Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(A).  Therefore, it is unknown whether the trial court was aware of Thomas’s request.  Additionally, Thomas did not pay the filing fee required under Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  By letter from this Court dated August 18, 2008, we advised Thomas that the “filing fee in the amount of $125.00 did not accompany the captioned original proceeding.  Unless the filing fee is paid by Thursday, August 28, 2008, this proceeding will be subject to dismissal.”  Tex. R. App. P. 5.  Thomas has not paid the fee as directed nor has he filed an affidavit of indigence.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.  

	Accordingly, we deny Thomas’s petition.  See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).

					Mackey K. Hancock

	Justice