alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007294EN.01002101.xml

| 13.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/21

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 23 October 2007

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in application of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2007/726/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (the ‘Fund’) to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (the ‘Fund’) to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two cases of redundancies in the automobile sector: Peugeot SA and Renault SA, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two cases of redundancies in the automobile sector: Peugeot SA and Renault SA,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised for a total amount of EUR 3 816 280.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 23 October 2007.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

M. LOBO ANTUNES

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

2

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6203** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.
MATTHEW JAMES DURY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00016

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : July 16, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before SHEDD and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Matthew James Dury, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Amy Elizabeth Ray, A ssistant United States Attorney , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Matthew James Dury appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to challenge jurisdiction **.** We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dury , No. 1:08

- cr - 00016

- MR

- 1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5573 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 

to biennially review and evaluate the grants management and oversight 

practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2010 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of 

Homeland Security to biennially review and evaluate the 

grants management and oversight practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

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 ‘‘Homeland Security 

5 Grant Review Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5573 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF GRANTS MANAGE2 MENT AND OVERSIGHT PRACTICES OF THE 

3 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGEN4 CY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, and every two years there7 after, the Inspector General of the Department of Home8 land Security shall review and evaluate the grants man9 agement and oversight practices of the Federal Emergency 

10 Management Agency with respect to the grants authorized 

11 under— 

12 (1) sections 2003 and 2004 of the Homeland 

13 Security Act (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605); 

14 (2) sections 1406, 1513, and 1532 of the Na15 tional Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (6 

16 U.S.C. 1135, 1163, and 1182); and 

17 (3) section 70107 of title 46, United States 

18 Code. 

19 (b) COMPONENTS.—The review under subsection (a) 

20 shall include an assessment of and recommendations relat21 ing to— 

22 (1) the skills, resources, and capabilities of the 

23 Federal Emergency Management Agency workforce 

24 that administers such grants, both at Federal Emer25 gency Management Agency headquarters and in the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5573 IH

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency regional of2 fices as appropriate; 

3 (2) any additional resources and staff necessary 

4 to carry out such management and oversight; 

5 (3) coordination with other components of the 

6 Department of Homeland Security with a role in as7 sisting the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

8 manage and administer the grants referred to in 

9 subsection (a); and 

10 (4) the procedures that recipients of grants re11 ferred to in subsection (a) must follow in order to 

12 obligate and expend their grant awards. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### SAMUEL GORDON, and VALLEY BANK OF NEVADA, a State Banking Association, and GEORGE W. FINNEY and GENE FINNEY aka GENE E. FINNEY, Appellants, v. N.T. McKEE, T. J. McKEE and EDITH McKEE, dba E & M TRAILER RANCH and JOHN F. DEMENY, Respondents.

No. 8891

June 12, 1978

579 P.2d 1245

[Rehearing denied July 5, 1978]

*Deaner, Deaner & Reynolds,*Las Vegas, for Appellants George W. Finney and Gene Finney aka Gene E. Finney.

*Wiener, Goldwater& Waldman, Ltd.,*Las Vegas, for Appellants Samuel Gordon and Valley Bank of Nevada.

*Hilbrecht, Jones, Schreck & Bybee,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*319OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from an order granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment in an action for declaratory relief and to quiet title to the E & M Trailer Ranch in North Las Vegas.

In support of their claim of reversible error, appellants contend summary judgment was improper because there remain genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved. We have reviewed the record in a light most favorable to appellants and find no dispute in the material facts; accordingly, summary judgment was proper. Lipshie v. Tracy Investment Co., 93 Nev. 370, 566 P.2d 819 (1977).

Affirmed.1

1

The Governor, pursuant to Article 6, § 4 of the Constitution, designated District Judge Llewellyn A. Young to sit for Mr. Justice Mowbray, who voluntarily disqualified himself and took no part in the decision.
#### Victor BOYD, Appellant, v. CARYVILLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Eugene Pippin, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1058.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2003.

Appellant, pro se.

Pamela S. Leslie and Gregory G. Costas, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Transportation.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of May 12, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final appealable *406order. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BOOTH, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
#### ESLEY D. HARDEN, Also Known as JOE HARDEN, Appellant, v. FANNIE MAE KOGO, Respondent.

No. 7673

April 30, 1975

534 P.2d 913

*Streeter, Sala & McAuliffe,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Minor & Parraguirre, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this case, the district court determined that appellant had received a total of $29,100 from respondent, and repaid only $9,757, leaving a balance owing of $19,345.

Testimony of disinterested persons and of appellant would support a determination that appellant received more from respondent than the trial court found. However, appellant contends the judgment, as actually entered, must fail because appellant’s counsel induced the trial judge to make supplemental findings relating to particular sources of the money delivered which, appellant contends, cannot be correlated precisely with amounts as testified to by respondent or her witnesses. We do not agree.

Concerning two particular sources of money, the New China Club and the Colony Club, the trial court’s findings correspond exactly with those amounts to which independent witnesses *266testified. Concerning other sources of money delivered, the court did not totally accept respondent’s evidence, and partially discounted her claims. Still, the individual findings, as well as the gross amount of the judgment, were all adequately supported. Cf. Casey v. Williams, 87 Nev. 137, 482 P.2d 824 (1971); Fireman’s Fund Ins. v. Shawcross, 84 Nev. 446, 442 P.2d 907 (1968).

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 7618** 

DAVID WILLIS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

JASMINE MARCHANT; KEVIN MURPHY; T. J. HAYCOX; KATHERINE PECBLES; LUCY LEE; SARAH MERKLE; JEFF BROWN; LUKE MCCLOUD; JONATHAN DAVID SHAUB; JUSTIN MURRAY; GRAYSON LAMBERT; WILL BRUMBACH; JOHN KAMMERRER; TONY EMMANUEL ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert G. Doumar , Se nior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv
- 00843

- RGD )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

David Willis appeals the district court ’ s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Willis v.

Marchant , No. 3:12

- cv
- 00843

- RGD (W.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2013). We
dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5502 

AN ACT 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provisions of 

the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5502 EH

1 SECTION 1. DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 Title IV of the Credit Card Accountability Responsi3 bility and Disclosure Act, is amended by striking section 

4 403 and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub7 section (b) of this section, this title and the amendments 

8 made by this title shall become effective 15 months after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a gift certifi12 cate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card 

13 that was produced prior to April 1, 2010, the effec14 tive date of the disclosure requirements described in 

15 sections 915(b)(3) and (c)(2)(B) of the Electronic 

16 Funds Transfer Act shall be January 31, 2011, pro17 vided that an issuer of such a certificate or card 

18 shall— 

19 ‘‘(A) comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) 

20 of section 915(b) of such Act; 

21 ‘‘(B) consider any such certificate or card 

22 for which funds expire to have no expiration 

23 date with respect to the underlying funds; 

24 ‘‘(C) at a consumer’s request, replace such 

25 certificate or card that has funds remaining at 

26 no cost to the consumer; and 
3 

•HR 5502 EH

1 ‘‘(D) comply with the disclosure require2 ments of paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

3 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The disclo4 sure requirements of this subsection are met by pro5 viding notice to consumers, via in-store signage, 

6 messages during customer service calls, Web sites, 

7 and general advertising, that— 

8 ‘‘(A) any such certificate or card for which 

9 funds expire shall be deemed to have no expira10 tion date with respect to the underlying funds; 

11 ‘‘(B) consumers holding such certificate or 

12 card shall have a right to a free replacement 

13 certificate or card that includes the packaging 

14 and materials, typically associated with such a 

15 certificate or card; and 

16 ‘‘(C) any dormancy fee, inactivity fee, or 

17 service fee for such certificates or cards that 

18 might otherwise be charged shall not be 

19 charged if such fees do not comply with section 

20 915 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

21 ‘‘(3) PERIOD FOR DISCLOSURE REQUIRE22 MENTS.—The notice requirements in paragraph (2) 
4 

•HR 5502 EH

1 of this subsection shall continue until January 31, 

2 2013.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5502 

AN ACT 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. sions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsi-
Opinion filed July 22, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00141-CR

__________

MARVIN RAY HAILE, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR023913

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

Marvin Ray Haile pleaded guilty on December 17, 2008, to the offense of terroristic 

threat. The trial court sentenced him to confinement for a term of sixty days in jail. We dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The trial court imposed the sentence in open court on December 17, 2008. Appellant 

filed his pro se notice of appeal in the trial court on June 8, 2010, over seventeen months after 

the date the sentence was imposed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2 requires that a notice of appeal must be 

filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or within ninety days after the 
2

sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.1 

Accordingly, the notice of appeal is not timely.2 Furthermore, a motion for extension of time to 

file the notice of appeal was not filed in compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Absent a timely 

notice of appeal or compliance with Rule 26.3, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. 

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 

519, 522-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions in this appeal are 

overruled.

PER CURIAM

July 22, 2010

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

 

1A motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days after the trial court imposes sentence in open court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 21.4.

2Appellant states in his docketing statement that he also filed notices of appeal on February 5, 2010; April 2, 2010; and 

May 11, 2010. These purported notices of appeal are also untimely filed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, MASTEAD ANNEX, 

Albuquerque, NM, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0680

Issued: May 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 14, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a December 27, 2021 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0680.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the December 27, 2021 decision was June 25, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until April 14, 2023, more than 180 days after the

December 27, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0680 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0680, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0680 is dismissed.

Issued: May 26, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
# L_2007215EN.01002701.xml

| 18.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 215/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 215/27

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 59 of 27 February 2007
  )

On page 30, Article 1(2), list of companies, second mention of the Republic of Korea:

for:

‘KP Chemicals Group:

| | Honam Petrochemicals Corp. |
| --- | --- |

Honam Petrochemicals Corp.

| | KP Chemicals Corp.’, |
| --- | --- |

KP Chemicals Corp.’,

read:

‘KP Chemical Group:

| | Honam Petrochemicals Corp. |
| --- | --- |

Honam Petrochemicals Corp.

| | KP Chemical Corp.’ |
| --- | --- |

KP Chemical Corp.’

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,187
<SECURITIES>                                       192
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                  ( 2,829)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,854
<PP&E>                                         370,029
<DEPRECIATION>                               (166,646)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,136
<OTHER-SE>                                     335,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   457,090
<SALES>                                        171,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,984
<CGS>                                          113,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,861
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,776
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,776
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60


</TABLE>
SPA CREST MANUFACTURING,

INC., a Georgia corporation

,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRYL WATERS, DARIAN

WATERS, and KHAYLA

WATERS

,

Respondent s.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4379

Opinion filed April 25, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

– original jurisdiction

.

Kathryn L. Ender of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami , for Petitioner.

Rebecca Bowen Creed and Meredith A. Ross of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville;

Howard C. Coker and Daniel A. Iracki of Coker, Schickel, Sorenson, Posgay,

Camerlengo & Iracki, Jacksonville, for Respondent s

.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOL F and B.L. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.