alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 89/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 89 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6229 March 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 89

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6229 March 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive (EU) 2019/514 of 14 March 2019 amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive (EU) 2019/514 of 14 March 2019 amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| 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.
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed February 19, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01511

- CV
HARRIS HOSPICE, INC. , Appellant

V. GLEN JONES, INDIVIDU ALLY AND AS THE REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH JONES, DECEA SED , Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 12742



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinio n by Justice Carlyle Before the Court is appellant’s February 14, 2019 unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal

for mootness. In the motion, appellant states the parties have resolved their issues. We grant the

motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

We dism iss this appeal.

181511F.P05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HARRIS HOSPICE, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 18

- 01511

- CV V.

GLEN JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH JONES, DECEASED, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 12742. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Bridges and Partida

- Kipness participati ng.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement of the parties, we ORDER that appellee Glen Jones, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Ruth Jones, Deceased recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Harris Hospice, Inc..

Judgment entered this 19 th day of February, 2019.
DOHERTY v. BROWN et al.

Southeastern Pain Ambulatory Surgery Center LLC. v. Brown et al.

Southeastern Pain Specialists, P. C. v. Brown et al.

A16A0763 A16A0765 A16A0766

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

August 15, 2018

John E. Hall Jr., Nichole Lee Hair, Atlanta, Nathan Alexander Gaffney, for Appellant in A16A0763.

William Curtis Anderson, Marietta, Edward M. Wynn, David Frank Root, James Nicholas Sadd, Atlanta, Neil Thomas Edwards, Daniel Marshall Epstein, Frank Mitchell Lowrey IV, Atlanta, for Appellee in A16A0763.

David Frank Root, Atlanta, Neil Thomas Edwards, Frank Mitchell Lowrey IV, Robert L. Ashe III, Atlanta, for Appellant in A16A0765.

William Curtis Anderson, Judith Ashe Blackwell, Marietta, John E. Hall Jr., Nichole Lee Hair, Edward M. Wynn, James Nicholas Sadd, Atlanta, Michael James Walker, Daniel Marshall Epstein, Atlanta, for Appellee in A16A0765.

William Curtis Anderson, Marietta, for Appellant in A16A0766.

John E. Hall Jr., Nichole Lee Hair, Edward M. Wynn, David Frank Root, James Nicholas Sadd, Atlanta, Neil Thomas Edwards, Daniel Marshall Epstein, Frank Mitchell Lowrey IV, Robert L. Ashe III, Atlanta, for Appellee in A16A0766.

Barnes, Presiding Judge.

*187In *Doherty v. Brown* , 339 Ga. App. 567, 794 S.E.2d 217 (2016) this Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. However, in *Southeastern Pain Specialists, P. C. v. Brown* , 303 Ga. 265, 811 S.E.2d 360 (2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed this Court's opinion upon finding that because the evidence did not support the claim, the trial court had erred in giving an instruction on ordinary negligence. Id. at 272-273 (2) (b), 811 S.E.2d 360. The Court instructed that this Court "on remand order a full retrial as to the appellants." Id. at 266, 811 S.E.2d 360.1

Thus, we vacate our opinion in these cases and adopt the opinion of our Supreme Court as our own. In accordance with the directive of the Supreme Court, the jury's verdict *260must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. *188*Judgment reversed.*

Rickman and Goss, JJ., concur.

1

The plaintiff-appellants in Case No. A16A0764, *Brown et al. v. Southeastern Pain Specialists* , *et al.* , did not file a separate petition challenging this Court's affirmance of the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence and denial of their motion for a mistrial. Thus, as to the evidentiary issues ruled on and asserted in that appeal, the Supreme Court held that the issues were "beyond the scope of [its] grant of certiorari" but, "the trial court remains free to revisit its ruling as it considers the admissibility of evidence on retrial." *Southeastern Pain Specialists* at 303 Ga. at 274-275 (2) (c), 811 S.E.2d 360.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 24, 2024

No. 04-24-00129-CV

Francine Suzette Bakabadio BIYOUDI,

Appellant

v.

Ream Synarel Banhy ZITHA,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CI16321

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION. Because appellant is indigent, no costs of this appeal are assessed.

It is so ORDERED on April 24, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of April, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57884-57885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act

[[Page 57885]]

(Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
    Name: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health.
    Date and Time: October 17, 2005, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Place: Audio Conference Call, Phone: 1-866-727-1333, Password: 
7822925.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general 
business activities, discussion of the Amended Charter and future 
activities of the Council.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anyone requiring information regarding 
the Council should contact Gladys Cate, Office of Minority and Special 
Populations, staff support to the National Advisory Council on Migrant 
Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone 
(301) 594-0367.

    Dated: September 29, 2005.
Tina M. Cheatham,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 05-19867 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK OKEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 822 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
STATE v. Joe Robert REYNOLDS

155P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Reynolds, Joe Robert.

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Joe Reynolds, for Reynolds, Joe Robert

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of February 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
EX-4.2



 EXHIBIT 4.2 
 TESLA MOTORS, INC. 
 WAIVER OF REGISTRATION RIGHTS 

DATED AS OF MAY 14, 2013 
 Reference is hereby made to that certain Fifth Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2009, as amended to date (the “Investors’ Rights
Agreement”), by and among Tesla Motors, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the investors named therein (which investors include each of the undersigned Holders of Registrable Securities). All
capitalized terms used in this Waiver of Registration Rights (this “Waiver”) have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Investors’ Rights Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. This Waiver shall be dated as of
the date on which the Company or its agents receive the last signed counterpart signature page hereto necessary to give effect to the actions contemplated hereby. 
 WHEREAS: The Company is contemplating potential concurrent public offerings of common stock and convertible senior notes of the Company, pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-3 to be filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to be completed on or before June 30, 2013 (the “Registered Offering”). 
 WHEREAS: Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of, Section 1.3 of the Investors’ Rights Agreement, if the Company proposes to register any of its stock or other securities
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in connection with a public offering of securities, (x) the Company shall, at such time, promptly give each Holder written notice of such registration
and (y) the Company shall cause to be registered under the Securities Act all of the Registrable Securities that each Holder of such securities requests to be registered in the public offering (the “Piggyback Registration
Rights”). 
 WHEREAS: Pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Investors’ Rights Agreement, any term of the
Investors’ Rights Agreement may be amended or waived with the written consent of (i) the Company and (ii) the holders of at least two-thirds of the Registrable Securities then outstanding, with such amendment or waiver to be binding
on all current and future holders of Registrable Securities. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Pursuant to
Section 5.2 of the Investors’ Rights Agreement, the Company and the undersigned holders of Registrable Securities, on their own behalf and on behalf of all current and future holders of their respective Registrable Securities, hereby waive
the Piggyback Registration Rights, and all notice and other rights related thereto, solely with respect to the Registered Offering. 
 [Signature page immediately follows] 







 This Waiver is hereby acknowledged and agreed on behalf of the undersigned: 

 

			
	COMPANY:
	
	TESLA MOTORS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Deepak Ahuja

	Name:	 	Deepak Ahuja
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer


 SIGNATURE PAGE TO WAIVER OF REGISTRATION RIGHTS 







 This Waiver is hereby acknowledged and agreed on behalf of the undersigned: 

 

			
	HOLDERS:
	
	ELON MUSK REVOCABLE TRUST
	DATED JULY 22, 2003
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Elon Musk

	Name:	 	 Elon Musk

	Title: 	 	 Trustee



 SIGNATURE PAGE TO WAIVER OF REGISTRATION RIGHTS
#### In the Matter of Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company, Appellant, v Jonathan Robbins, Respondent. Judith Paul et al., Proposed Additional Respondents. Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company of New York, Proposed Additional Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 153]

In a proceeding to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Reliman, J.H.O.), dated November 4, 1999, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On December 31, 1996, a vehicle owned by Maria Robbins and operated by Jonathan Robbins was allegedly struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by Dewitt Joyner. The Joyner vehicle had been insured by Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Bankers), which, on September 26, 1996, sent Joyner a notice cancelling his insurance, effective October 14, 1996. The notice of cancellation provided, *inter*alia: “[insurance must be in effect throughout the registration period.” At the time of the accident, Maria Robbins was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by the petitioner, Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive). Jonathan Robbins sought arbitration under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy, and Progressive commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the petition. We affirm.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) provides, *inter alia,*that *632“[e]very notice or acknowledgement of termination * * * sent to the insured shall include * * * a statement that proof of financial security is required to be maintained continuously throughout the registration period” *(see also,*15 NYCRR 34.6 [a]).

It is well established that a notice of cancellation is ineffective unless it is in strict compliance with the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) *(see, Dunn v Passmore,*228 AD2d 472; *Allstate Ins. Co. v Carlough,*132 AD2d 553, *affd*70 NY2d 912). Contrary to Progressive’s contention, the language employed by Bankers in its notice of cancellation complies with the statutory requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law *(see, Barile v Kavanaugh,*67 NY2d 392, 398). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Gold-stein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Leon CONNER

No. COA17-1293

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO ERROR.
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 Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David G. Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ David G. Moore     
|David G. Moore         
|Chief Executive Officer
|September 13, 2004
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4661 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar limitation 

on expensing certain depreciable assets and to extend the deduction 

for an additional year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. HODES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the dollar limitation on expensing certain depreciable assets and to extend the deduction for an additional year. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITA4 TION ON EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE 

5 BUSINESS ASSETS. 

6 (a) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) of section 

7 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

8 limitations) is amended by striking ‘‘$125,000 in the case 

9 of taxable years beginning after 2006 and before 2011’’ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4661 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘$250,000 in the case of taxable years be2 ginning in 2010 or 2011’’. 

3 (b) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Paragraph (2) of 

4 section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

6 (c) ELECTION.—Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of 

7 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘2012’’. 

9 (d) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Clause (ii) of section 

10 179(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

12 (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

13 (1) REPEAL OF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

14 Section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking 

15 paragraph (5). 

16 (2) REPEAL OF 2008 AND 2009 ADJUSTMENTS.— 

17 Section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking 

18 paragraph (7). 

19 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Tatiana Morena ARACENA and Sandra Smith, Defendants.

No. COA17-1253

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO ERROR.
* Concurring in judgment only.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10968

PENELOPE LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and DENNIS, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ** The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons: 1. We will assume that an employer’s denial of access to its internal grievance proceeding, responding to the filing of a Title VII charge by the employee,can violate the anti-retaliation provision. That may be true even where the internal proceeding and the resolution are purely discretionary with the employer, as is true here. We do suggest that the employer should explain in its policy that the internal proceeding is not available when legal charges are pending. 2. The problem with appellant’s case is the absence of injury or harm either as of the employer’s action or as adjudicated by the judgment on appeal. Harm is required by the Burlington decision and its absence is the position advanced by appellee. Appellant had no discrimination claim of substance. Only speaking of gender and religious discrimination, her evidence showed merely a disagreement between appellant and another nurse. The district court entered summary judgment for that reason, and appellant makes no objection. This complaint would have gained nothing for appellant if pursued the internal route. Appellant suffered no harm then or now. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1


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

     In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of State of Franklin
Bancshares, Inc. I, Randal R. Greene, President of State of Franklin Bancshares,
Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 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; and

2.   The information  contained in this report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of State of
     Franklin Bancshares, Inc.


March 31, 2003                                    /s/ Randal R. Greene
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Randal R. Greene
                                                  President
Betty Jo O'NEAL v. Jeffrey Hunter FOX and Lisa Polley Fox

No. 138P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Brenton D. Adams, Attorney at Law, Gregory A. Posch, Attorney at Law, Betty Jo O'Neal, for O'Neal, Betty Jo.

Kristie L. Hedrick, Raleigh, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Fox, Jeffrey Hunter, et al.

***ORDER***

*384Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of May 2018 by Plaintiff 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 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2018 by Plaintiff for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
Exhibit 4.11

SCHEDULE OF OMITTED INSTRUMENT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF RADIO FREQUENCY BLOCKS FOR 3G SERVICES

As these agreements are identical in every
case except for their reference number and the sector covered by them, we have, for ease of reference, filed only the relevant standard instrument of authorization approved by ANATEL and provided this schedule to indicate the authorizations that we
have omitted from filing as exhibits to this annual report on Form 20-F.



|1. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 3G Services between ANATEL and TNL PCS S.A., No 23/2008, dated April 23, 2008.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 3G Services between ANATEL and 14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No 24/2008, dated April 29, 2008.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 3G Services between ANATEL and 14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No 25/2008, dated April 29, 2008.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 3G Services between ANATEL and 14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No 26/2008, dated May 26, 2008.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------