alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Az Európai Unió C 280A/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 280A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 66. évfolyam2023. augusztus 9. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 280A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

66. évfolyam2023. augusztus 9.

---

| Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Európai Személyzeti Felvételi Hivatal (EPSO) |
| 2023/C 280 A/01 | Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: EPSO/AD/402/23 – Tanácsos (AD 6) a következő szakterületeken: 1. Mikroökonómia/makroökonómia 2. Pénzügyi gazdaság 3. Ipargazdaság ( HL C 220 A., 2023.6.22. ) | 1 |

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Személyzeti Felvételi Hivatal (EPSO)

2023/C 280 A/01

Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: EPSO/AD/402/23 – Tanácsos (AD 6) a következő szakterületeken: 1. Mikroökonómia/makroökonómia 2. Pénzügyi gazdaság 3. Ipargazdaság ( HL C 220 A., 2023.6.22. )

( HL C 220 A., 2023.6.22. )

1

---

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Személyzeti Felvételi Hivatal (EPSO)

| 2023.8.9. | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2023.8.9.

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 280/1

---

Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: EPSO/AD/402/23 – Tanácsos (AD 6) a következő szakterületeken: 1. Mikroökonómia/makroökonómia 2. Pénzügyi gazdaság 3. Ipargazdaság

(
  Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja C 220 A., 2023. június 22.
  )

(2023/C 280 A/01)

Az 1. oldalon:

| a következő szövegrész: | „A regisztráció határideje: 2023. július 25., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra”, |
| --- | --- |

a következő szövegrész:

„A regisztráció határideje: 2023. július 25., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra”,

| helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép: | „A regisztráció határideje: 2023. július 26., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra”. |
| --- | --- |

helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép:

helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép

„A regisztráció határideje: 2023. július 26., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra”.

Az 5. oldalon:

| a következő szövegrész: | „A pályázóknak az
  EPSO honlapján (2)
  kell jelentkezniük a versenyvizsgára a következő időpontig: 2023. július 25., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra.”, |
| --- | --- |

a következő szövegrész:

a következő szövegrész

„A pályázóknak az
  EPSO honlapján (2)
  kell jelentkezniük a versenyvizsgára a következő időpontig: 2023. július 25., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra.”,

| helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép: | „A pályázóknak az
  EPSO honlapján (2) kell jelentkezniük a versenyvizsgára a következő időpontig: 2023. július 26., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra.”. |
| --- | --- |

helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép:

helyébe az alábbi szöveg lép

„A pályázóknak az
  EPSO honlapján (2) kell jelentkezniük a versenyvizsgára a következő időpontig: 2023. július 26., brüsszeli idő szerint déli 12 óra.”.

---

(2)  https://epso.europa.eu/hu/job-opportunities/open-for-application

2

---
2003 ME 94

#### STATE of Maine v. Lee CURTIS.

Docket No. Cum-02-614.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted On Briefs: June 26, 2003.

Decided: July 21, 2003.

*796Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, Julia Sheridan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Portland, for State.

Thomas J. Connolly, Portland, for defendant.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

DANA, J.

[¶ 1] Lee Curtis appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Portland, *Beaudoin, J.)*convicting him of one count of operating under the influence (Class D) in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411(1) (1996). Curtis contends that the court erred in (1) denying him an involuntary intoxication defense; and (2) denying a de minimis dismissal. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

[¶ 2] Curtis claimed that his impairment—evidenced by erratic driving, slurred speech, unsteadiness, sluggish movements, and poor balance—was the result of consumption not of cannabis or alcohol, but of three prescription medications. Although he contends that he suffered from involuntary intoxication because he “had no idea” that the medication might affect his driving, he admits that he was aware of the warning on all three medicine bottles to “use caution when operating a car.”

[¶ 3] Because OUI is not a crime requiring any specific intent, *any*intent defense is unavailing. *See*29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411(1) (1996). Thus, whether or not Curtis’s intoxication was involuntary is irrelevant to the determination of whether he violated the statute. *See State v. West,*416 A.2d 5, 6-8 (Me.1980).

[¶ 4] Further, because Curtis’s OUI was not a de minimis infraction under the statute, *see*17-A M.R.S.A. § 12(1) (1983), the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss on de minimis grounds when Curtis intentionally consumed the drugs despite having been warned about driving after consumption. *Compare State v. Kargar,*679 A.2d 81, 84, 86 (Me.1996) (articulating the factors appropriate for a de minimis analysis but vacating the defendant’s convictions because “the Legislature did not envision the extenuating circumstances present in [that] ease”).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed
#### Gregory CLEM, Petitioner, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT SERVICE CO. and Specialty Risk Services, Respondents.

No. 1D02-4480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 14, 2003.

*433Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe *&*Colley, Longwood, for Petitioner.

Iris DuBois of Hayes *&*Greene, P.A., Tampa, for Respondents.

ERVIN, J.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. *See Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. v. Cabrera,*698 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

WOLF, C.J., and BENTON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.1

                                December 31, 2001

Richard S. Ressler
Orchard Capital Corporation
6922 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Mr. Ressler:

As you are aware, on April 1, 2000 Orchard Capital Corporation, a California
corporation ("Consultant") and j2 Global Communications, Inc. ("Company")
entered into a letter agreement, as amended by a letter agreement dated April 1,
2001 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which Company retained Consultant as a
financial consultant and advisor to Company. We are sending you this letter to
modify the Agreement in order to increase the compensation payable to the
Consultant under the Agreement in accordance with an analysis and recommendation
prepared at the request of the Committee by William M. Mercer Companies LLC, as
follow:

Section 2(a) of the Agreement is hereby modified to increase the monthly amount
payable to Consultant thereunder from twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) to
twenty-three thousand dollars ($23,000).

Except as modified by this letter agreement, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain in effect.

Please sign below to acknowledge and agree that the Agreement has been modified
as described above. The Company's signature set forth below indicates its
acknowledgement and agreement to this modification.

                           Very truly yours,

                           j2 Global Communications, Inc.

                           By: /s/ Scott M. Jarus
                              ---------------------
                               Scott M. Jarus
                               President

Accepted and Agreed to as of the Date of this Letter:
-----------------------------------------------------

Orchard Capital Corporation

By:      /s/ Richard S. Ressler
   ---------------------------------
         Richard S. Ressler
         President
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-197]


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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Suspension of Textile Visa Requirements for Ukraine

December 30, 2004.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection suspending all previous directives concerning visa 
requirements for Ukraine.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip J. Martello, Director, Trade 
and Data Division, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, (202) 482-3400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; 
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
1854).
    Due to the expiration on December 31, 2004 of the bilateral textile 
agreement with Ukraine, the United States is suspending visa 
requirements for textile products from Ukraine exported after that 
date.
    Negotiations on extension of the bilateral agreement are ongoing 
with Ukraine. Visa requirements may be reinstated upon extension of the 
bilateral agreement.
    In the letter below, CITA is directing the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection to temporarily suspend all textile visa requirements 
for goods exported from Ukraine on and after January 1, 2005.

D. Michael Hutchinson,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

December 30, 2004.

Commissioner,
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C. 20229.
    Dear Commissioner: This directive suspends all previous 
directives issued to you by the Chairman, Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements concerning textile visa 
requirements for goods produced or manufactured in Ukraine, covering 
wool textile products subject to the quota limits under the United 
States - Ukraine bilateral textile agreement. Effective for such 
goods exported from Ukraine on and after January 1, 2005, you are 
directed not to require a textile visa for entry into the Customs 
territory of the United States.
    The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreement has 
determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs 
exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
    Sincerely,
D. Michael Hutchinson,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.
[FR Doc. 05-197 Filed 1-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

December 30, 2001


          Addendum to Lease - U.S. Laboratories - Joseph M. Wasilewski
                               (Tenant)                  (Landlord)
                      (1/st/ Floor - 631 Newman Springs Road)

(1)  Whereas, the lease for the first floor office space expires on February 1,
     2002.

(2)  Whereas, the tenant U.S. Laboratories Inc. desires not to renew the lease
     for a term but on a month-to-month basis.

(3)  Whereas, the present lease cost per month is $1,700.00 per month for the
     first floor office space and basement storage and effective February 1,
     2002 the rent shall be $1,785.00 per month N/N/N.

(4)  Whereas, in consideration of the above, tenant U.S. Laboratories, Inc.
     agrees that it will pay the landlord Joseph M. Wasilewski a minimum of six
     months rent upon vacating the premises.

                                      -1-
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of General Nutrition Centers, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 August 4, 2006
    
    /s/ Curtis J. LarrimerCurtis J. LarrimerChief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Darron Jermaine JONES

No. 438P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Darron J. Jones, for Jones, Darron Jermaine

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of November 2018 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wayne County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of November 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Beasley, J. recused
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.07-30992 CARL J. SERVAT, JR. Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

2:04-CV-2928 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D October 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### STATE ex rel. Warren L. JORDAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2003-KH-1849.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Jordan, Warren L.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 99-3680.

*1033Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the petition to the district court for enforcement of its order of August 1, 2002, in which it ordered the production of relator’s Boykin transcript, if it has not done so already. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4940 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax incentives 

for alcohol used as fuel and to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States to extend additional duties on ethanol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. HARE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. 

BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. 

WALZ, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. LEE of New York, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, 

Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. HALVORSON, Mr. GRAVES, 

Mr. ELLSWORTH, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. DAVIS of 

Alabama, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. TERRY, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. COSTELLO, 

Mr. HILL, Mr. FOSTER, and Mr. KIRK) 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 

certain tax incentives for alcohol used as fuel and to 

amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to extend additional duties on ethanol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renewable Fuels Rein5 vestment Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4940 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL 

2 USED AS FUEL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 40(e) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ in sub6 paragraph (A) and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’, 

7 and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2011’’ in subpara9 graph (B) and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

10 (b) CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.—Subparagraph (H) of 

11 section 40(b)(6) of such Code is amended by striking 

12 ‘‘January 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

13 (c) REDUCED AMOUNT FOR ETHANOL BLENDERS.— 

14 Paragraph (2) of section 40(h) of such Code is amended 

15 by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

19 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL 

20 USED AS FUEL. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 6426(b) 

22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik23 ing ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

24 2015’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4940 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

4 SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON ETHANOL. 

5 Headings 9901.00.50 and 9901.00.52 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each 

7 amended in the effective period column by striking ‘‘1/1/ 

8 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘1/1/2016’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Derrick AKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-1886.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, appellant challenges the revocation of his community control. The trial court found three violations of the control provisions. Although we conclude that the court erred in determining that appellant failed to follow the instructions of his community control officer when the specific condition violated was imposed by the officer, not the court, *see Voudry v. State,*641 So.2d 466, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), there was competent substantial evidence to support the other two violations. We conclude from the record that the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation based on these violations alone. We therefore affirm.

WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
**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 of Collexis Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
      D. Kirkland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





November
      14, 2008


/s/ William D. KirklandWilliam
              D. Kirkland
              Chief
                Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 2 0

- 12498 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:19

- cr - 00540

- JSM

- AAS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
MICHAEL PRIME , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( September 30, 2021 )
Before JORDAN , BRANC H, and LAGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-12498 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 1 of 22 Rosemary Cakmis , counsel for Michael Prime in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (196 7). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GR ANTED , and Prime’s
convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12498 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 2 of 2
#### STATE ex rel. Thomas Louis PHILLIPS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Phillips, Thomas Louis;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 245-434.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion for production of documents filed in 2002. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.