alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008301EN.01003202.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2008 — Neophytou v Commission

(Case T-43/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Staff cases - Open competition - Rejection of the appellant's candidature - Composition of the selection board for the oral tests - Principle of equal treatment - New pleas in law - Error of law - Appeal in part unfounded and in part founded - Referral back to the Civil Service Tribunal)

(2008/C 301/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission [2006] ECR-SC II-A-1-617 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Neophytou

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the submissions, with the exception of the last, put forward by Mr Neophytos Neophytou at the hearing at first instance and summarised in paragraph 27 of that judgment, were inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the submissions, with the exception of the last, put forward by Mr Neophytos Neophytou at the hearing at first instance and summarised in paragraph 27 of that judgment, were inadmissible;

Neophytou

Commission

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 4. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01003802.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission

(Case F-66/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2011/C 340/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kalliopi Kyriazi (Clabecq, Belgium) (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented, initally, by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, and subsequently by K. Herrmann and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the 12 September 2005 appointing the applicant a probationary official in Grade C*1, step 2, and of all measures consecutive and/or relating thereto, such as the decision to withdraw and not re-establish her secretarial allowance after her establishment.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mrs Kyriazi and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mrs Kyriazi and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.07.06, p. 43.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Damario Montreal Coxton

No. 121A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016.

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Coxton, Damario Montreal.

David Elliott, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

This matter is before this Court on defendant's Notice of Appeal based on a Constitutional Question, seeking review of the Court of Appeals' opinion dismissing defendant's appeal and denying defendant's petition for *802writ of *certiorari* filed before that court. The State's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is ALLOWED. This Court on its own motion, however, vacates the denial of defendant's petition writ of *certiorari* at the Court of Appeals and remands this case to the Court of Appeals with directions to allow defendant's petition for writ of *certiorari* as filed before that court.

By Order of this Court, this 9 day of June, 2016.
Leavitt v. Hargrove

268P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Owen D. Leavitt, for Leavitt, Owen Deshawn.

Paul J. Stainback, Attorney at Law, Henderson, for Hargrove, Willie.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of September 2016 by Plaintiff for Notice of Appeal:

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00300-CR

Alma Santos BERLANGA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-6301

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2008

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal is

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Huaren Organic Products, Inc. (the Company) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  November 19, 2007 /s/ Fang Jinzhong______________ Fang Jinzhong, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18865]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Minority Programs Review Committee, MARC 
Review Subcommittee A.
    Date: October 11-12, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Richard I. Martinez, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher 
Building, Room 3AN-12B, 45 Center Drive MSC 6200, Bethesda, MD 
20892-6200, (301) 594-2849, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8dac59e9bcee8c6c1c086cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88a95cecb9eb8969190d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-18865 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00494-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE HEI RESOURCES, INC., 

R. D. TUSETH, RICK STRATTON, AND STEVEN HEARNE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

1

Relators, HEI Resources, Inc., R. D. Tuseth, Rick Stratton, and Steven Hearne, filed

a petition for writ of mandamus, a motion to seal records, and an emergency motion for

temporary relief in the above cause on August 18, 2008. That same day, this Court: (1)

granted the emergency motion for temporary relief and ordered stayed the trial court’s

order of August 6, 2008; (2) granted the motion to seal records; and (3) requested that the

real party in interest, S. Lavon Evans, Jr. Operating Company, by and through counsel, file
2

a response to relators' petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days

from the date of that order. The real party in interest has duly filed its response and

relators have filed a reply thereto.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record and the sealed documents filed herein, the response, and the reply thereto, is

of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is ordered LIFTED and the petition

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b). 

Documents which were filed herein under seal may be retrieved by the party filing

same. Pending motions, if any, are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 8 day of October, 2008. th
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7128

WAYNE ELLIOTT WILKERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of

Correction,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00802-WO-PTS)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Elliott Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Elliott Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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 Wilkerson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-18-2008

USA v. Pfund

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4892

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Pfund" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 522.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/522
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4892

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

NICOLE PFUND,

a/k/a KELLY LASEY,

a/k/a JAMIE HART,

a/k/a TABITHA RASTELLI,

a/k/a STACEY MONTY,

a/k/a DIANE COSTELLO,

a/k/a DANA EISENHOWER

 Nicole Pfund, Appellant

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-00023)

District Judge: The Honorable Kent A. Jordan

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 9, 2008

BEFORE: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
2

(Filed: September 18, 2008)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Nicole Pfund, pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, a violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1) and 2. She was sentenced to one hundred months’ imprisonment

and five years of supervised release. Pfund was also ordered to pay restitution in the

amount of $36,149.06 to her victims. She appeals her sentence as procedurally and

substantively unreasonable. We will affirm.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for

reasonableness. The record on appeal indicates that the District Court reasonably

considered and applied the Section 3553(a) factors in determining Pfund’s sentence,

including her argument for a variance. The sentence imposed was within the range

suggested by the guidelines, notably at the low end of that range. Further, the District

Court made adequate findings on the record, reflecting its meaningful consideration of the

factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Having determined that the District Court gave “meaningful consideration” to the

relevant factors, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying

them to Pfund. United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006), cert.

denied, 127 S.Ct. 600 (2006). The District Court's sentence was within the Guidelines
3

range for the offense level to which Pfund agreed, and the District Court clearly

articulated its reasons for sentencing Pfund. Accordingly, we reject Pfund’s claim that

the sentence imposed was unreasonable and will affirm the District Court.
# C_2008037EN.01001901.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-544/07)

(2008/C 37/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional Administrative Court, Wrocław) (Poland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wrocław Tax Division, Wałbrzych office)

Defendant:

Question referred

Must the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 39(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the national provision contained in Article 27b of the Law of 26 July 1991 on income tax payable by natural persons, which restricts the right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of compulsory health insurance contributions paid to contributions paid exclusively on the basis of provisions of national law, in the case where a resident pays in another Member State compulsory health insurance contributions deducted from income taxed in Poland?

---
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 on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the "Company") for the first quarter ended March 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned 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 such officer's 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: May 19, 2006





Jerome I. Feldman                                    Scott N. Greenberg
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
|                       |               
|---------------------- | --------------
|Report to Shareholders | March 31, 2011





In the past year, the Company has achieved its goals and exceeded expectations of many of our shareholders and observers.



This success is due to the efforts of a small but strong team of professionals at Nevsun and a great leadership team at our Bisha mine in Eritrea.  Our dedicated contractors and employees, plus the integral part played by the State of Eritrea, have advanced Bisha to production today. The Eritrean Government has been particularly supportive of the Bisha Mine, and we are pleased that Nevsun has been able to help establish Eritreas mining industry.

In the face of adversity in early 2010, the Company successfully financed Bisha without any debt or hedging and then promptly completed construction, with first gold pour in December 2010. The ramp up to commercial production was achieved a brief two months later, with Bisha now producing over 1,000 ounces of gold per day.

We have this month increased our mineral reserves by 40% and are actively engaged in drill programs that should result in another reserve re-statement later this year.

As explained in our annual management discussion and analysis and evidenced in our annual financial statements, the Company has a strong cash position and has successfully transitioned to an operating mining company. We look forward to a strong year in 2011.



Outlook for 2011:



·

We will accumulate significant cash from operations

·

We expect to significantly add to existing Bisha reserves

·

We will apply for an additional mining license on the Harena deposit

·

We are actively evaluating possible acquisitions and, if we are able to identify an asset of sufficient quality at a reasonable price, we plan on expanding our property portfolio

·

We will explore a potential dividend policy to provide a cash return to shareholders



We have proven our ability in the past few years to get Bisha into very successful production and look forward to expanding this success in 2011.



On behalf of Nevsun and the Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for your commitment to the growth and future prosperity of the Company.





Cliff T. Davis



Clifford T. Davis
President and CEO

Nevsun Resources Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.6
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,990
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 28,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,244
<INVENTORY>                                    3,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              36,362
<PP&E>                                        80,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                20,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               103,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26,035
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         390
<OTHER-SE>                                    48,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 103,021
<SALES>                                       60,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              60,590
<CGS>                                         43,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 43,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 429
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,137
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,556
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.24
        


</TABLE>
Fannie Mae v. Price

257P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. William Gerald Price, Pro Se.

Ms. Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, For Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

The following order has been entered on the motion to Dismiss Appeal filed on the 19th of September 2016 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."