alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008285EN.01004001.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/40

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Município de Gondomar v Commission

(Case T-324/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Cancellation of financial assistance - Lack of direct effect - Admissibility)

(2008/C 285/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Município de Gondomar (Portugal) (represented by: J. da Cruz Vilaça, D. Choussy and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra and Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/017 — Redevelopment of Grande Porto Sul — Subsistema de Gondomar.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Município de Gondomar shall bear its own costs and those of the Commission, including the costs incurred in the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Município de Gondomar shall bear its own costs and those of the Commission, including the costs incurred in the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00077

- CR

Tallion Kyle Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GO ODWI N, KELLY, AND SMITH AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the reco rd and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgments of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20224

Conference Calendar

__________________

CHARLES VERNON POPHAM,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NFN COUNTZ, Warden,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-223

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Popham appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

suit in which he alleged that his health and safety were

endangered during a fire at the prison. A district court may

dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Eason v. Thaler,

14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). 
No. 95-20224

-2-

This court reviews a prisoner's allegations challenging the

conditions of his confinement under the "deliberate indifference" 

standard. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). A prison

official acts with deliberate indifference under the Eighth

Amendment "only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk

of serious harm and [he] disregards that risk by failing to take

reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct.

1970, 1984 (1994). Deliberate indifference to the serious

medical needs of a prisoner "constitutes the unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976)

Popham did not plead any facts raising an allegation that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and

safety. On the contrary, when faced with an emergency due to a

fire, they acted promptly in evacuating Popham and the other

prisoners in his cell-block. Popham then received treatment for

smoke inhalation before being returned to his cell. 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing Popham's complaint as frivolous. See Eason, 14

F.3d at 9. Popham's appeal is without arguable merit and thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Telefônica Brasil S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eduardo Navarro de Carvalho, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Date: February 23, 2017 |                                
| | ----------------------- | -------------------------------
| |                         |                                
| | By:                     | /s/ Eduardo Navarro de Carvalho
| |                         | Name:                          
| |                         | Title:
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                  
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                      |  | Name: J. Roe Buckley             
|Date: August 21, 2006 |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer   
|                      |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
---

Loan Agreement

Between

Clyvia Technology GmbH Friedrich-List-Allee 10 D-41844
Wegberg-Wildenrath

- In the following referred to as Clyvia -

and

BTec Holding AG Rheinweg 1 CH  8200 Schaffhausen

- In the following referred to as BTec -

Preamble

Clyvia has developed a depolymerization system. In light of the
capital required by Clyvia, the parties enter into the following contract.

1.

BTec shall grant to Clyvia a loan in the amount of EURO
15,000.00 (in words: fifteen thousand EURO). Clyvia hereby acknowledges
receipt.

2.

The loan shall be paid out into the account of Clyvia
Technology GmbH, Wegberg-Wildenrath.

3.

The interest payable on the loan amount shall be 10% p.a.

Page 1 of 2

---

4.

The loan may be canceled by giving one months notice at the end
of a month, however, not before end of the 90th calendar day
following the receipt of the full loan amount in the account specified under
item 2.

5.

Clyvia is entitled to pay back the loan amount including
interest at any time into the account of BTec. This does not require
cancellation.

6.

As collateral for the loan, Inventa shall assign to BTec
112,500 (in words: one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred) shares of
Clyvia Inc., USA. BTec is entitled to freely sell the shares in whole or in
part, if Inventa does not or does not fully pay back the loan amount plus
interest after the due date; otherwise, BTec is obligated to return them to
Inventa.

7.

This contract shall exclusively be governed by the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany with the exception of the United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

8.

Any disputes arising under or in connection with this agreement
shall be conclusively resolved according to the rules of arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in the current version at the time of
the arbitration proceeding by one or several arbitrators appointed according to
these rules of arbitration with under preclusion of the due process of law The
court of arbitration may also make a binding decision regarding the validity of
this arbitration process.

The place of arbitration shall be Zurich.

Additionally to the ICC rules and regulations, as well as any
other binding rules the arbitration proceeding shall be governed by German
law.

The parties agree that German shall be the language utilized in
any arbitration proceeding.

Wegberg, August 28, 2008

|[Signature]            |  | [Signature]                  | 
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | 
|Clyvia Technology GmbH |  | BTec Holding AG              | 
|Dieter Wagels          |  | C. Stampfli Dr. Niederbacher | 

Page 2 of 2

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137101 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: 137101 

 COA: 277755 

Macomb CC: 06-005311-FC 

JAMES ALONZO LEWIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 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. 

1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Edward SANCHEZ, Defendant.

No. COA17-1135

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

NO ERROR.
In the MATTER OF: M.B.

No. COA16-788

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
#### Ronald HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-1030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii); *Robinson v. State,*373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979).

KLEIN, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7360
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL LOVELL HINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-434-S, CA-97-2900-S) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lovell Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hinton , Nos. CR-89-434-S; CA-97-2900-S (D. Md. Aug. 22, 1997). 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. In fact, having carefully reviewed the record and Appellant's brief, we conclude that Appellant's appeal is frivolous within the meaning of Fed. R. App. P. 38. See e.g. , Brock v. Angelone , 105 F.3d 952 (4th Cir. 1997). We therefore order Appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed against him.

DISMISSED
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58201 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 05–30] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 05–30 with 

attached transmittal and policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

58202 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 


EN05OC05.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58203 


EN05OC05.039</GPH>
58204 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 


EN05OC05.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58205 

[FR Doc. 05–19901 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


EN05OC05.041</GPH>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

720 

CAF 15-01141 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DOUGLAS C. MACHADO, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHANDRA V. TANOURY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

KOSLOSKY & KOSLOSKY, UTICA (WILLIAM L. KOSLOSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

MICHELE E. DETRAGLIA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal

B. Caldwell, J.), entered May 5, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same memorandum as in Matter of Machado v Tanoury ([appeal No. 1]

___ AD3d ___ [Sept. 30, 2016]).

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
STATE v. Raymond GRIFFIN

322P15-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. Raymond Alan Griffin, For Griffin, Raymond Alan

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of March 2018 by Defendant for Appeal of Motion for Appropriate Relief by Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 0864 LT Case No. 2019

- 101082

- CFDL

_____________________________ W AD E L E ON M C K EEHAN , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. J ames R. Clayton , Judge

. Mat thew J. Me zt, Public Defender, and Ryan M. Belanger, Assistant Public Defend er, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.
A shl ey Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robe rts J. Bradford, J r., Assistant Atto rney Gen eral, Dayt ona Beach , for Appellee. February 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. E DWARDS , C.J. , L AMBERT , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATIONS



(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by ECB Bancorp, Inc. (the
Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the period presented therein.



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  | /S/    ARTHUR H. KEENEY
III                      
|                     |  | Arthur H. Keeney, III                            
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                     | 
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  | /S/    GARY M.
ADAMS                             
|                     |  | Gary M. Adams                                    
|                     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00191

- CR

FIDEL BRIONES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 4108

- 16

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 27, 2017
STATE v. Christina Shea WALTERS

548A00-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Ms. Shelagh R. Kenney, Attorney at Law, for Walters, Christina Shea

Mr. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Durham, Attorney at Law, for Walters, Christina Shea

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. James E. Williams, Jr., Carrboro, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Mr. Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Mr. Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Ms. Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists

Ms. Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State *377The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by Professors John Charles Boger and Robert P. Mosteller for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
ELI GLOBAL, LLC, et al. v. James A. HEAVNER

No. 12PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2018

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Kendal B. Reed, Attorney at Law, for Eli Global, LLC, et al.

James H. Hughes, Attorney at Law, Richard M. Hutson, II, Attorney at Law, Durham, Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, for Heavner, James A.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration the motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed. It is further ordered that the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this *1st* day of *March*, 2018.

Jackson, J., recused
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William John Figueroa, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 249]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 10, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction, to run consecutively to concurrent terms of 8V3 to 25 years and 5 to 15 years on the remaining convictions, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed a sentence for the murder conviction that was consecutive to the sentences for attempted murder and assault. Although defendant’s first shot both killed the deceased victim and slightly wounded the surviving victim, defendant then moved closer to the assault victim and purposefully shot him, causing serious physical injury. This clearly constituted a separate and distinct act sufficient for the imposition of consecutive sentences (see, *People v Laureano, 87*NY2d 640, 643; *People v Serrano,*256 AD2d 175, *lv denied*93 NY2d 878). We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence in the interest of justice.

The court was not required to instruct the jury in the specific language requested by defendant with respect to its consciousness of guilt and alibi charges. In each instance, the charge as a whole conveyed the proper standards. Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.