alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011077EN.01000501.xml

| 11.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/5

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

2011/C 77/05

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Implementing Decision 2011/156/CFSP (1) and in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 233/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP (3) and to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (4) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

3

4

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| TEFS Coordination |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

TEFS Coordination

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 64, 11.3.2001, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 64, 11.3.2001, p. 13.

2

(3)  OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 53.

3

(4)  OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 1.

4

---
# C_2011200EN.01001501.xml

| 8.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

Request from a contracting entity

2011/C 200/07

On 24 June 2011, the Commission received a request under Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 27 June 2011.

1

This request, made by Magyar Posta, concerns certain financial services (cf. fourth indent of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2004/17/EC) in Hungary. Article 30 provides that the Directive does not apply where the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not limited. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.

The Commission has a period of three months, as from the working day referred to above, within which to take a decision on this request. The period therefore ends on 27 September 2011.

This period may be extended by three months. Notice of any such extension must be published.

Pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(6), further requests concerning certain financial services in Hungary, submitted before the period opened for this request expires, will not be regarded as subject to new procedures and will be dealt with as part of this request.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7393

DONALD WAYNE BRIGHT,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA THORNTON; FRANK L. PERRY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02232-BO)

Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wayne Bright, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wayne Bright seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Bright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 125 (Friday, June 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-55508]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170


Worker Protection Standard

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 150 to 189, 
revised as of July 1, 2006, in Sec.  170.112, on page 212, paragraph 
(a)(1) is corrected to read as follows:


Sec.  170.112  Entry restrictions.

    (a) * * * (1) After the application of any pesticide on an 
agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer shall not allow 
or direct any worker to enter or to remain in the treated area before 
the restricted-entry interval specified on the pesticide labeling has 
expired, except as provided in this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 07-55508 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 7, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301,                     *et seq*. (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Invisar, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC; and Triple E Corporation, Lowell, MA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 30, 2007. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38619).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-5560 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00242

- CR

Rashad Rudolph v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County , Texas Trial Cause No. I

- 13

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 5, 2018
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

NANCY DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00046-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 22, the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree to the amount of fees and also to the amount of costs. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees under EAJA in the amount of $3,560.00, subject to any

offsetting debt owed by the Plaintiff to the United States. If the agreement between

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel is such that these fees are assigned to Plaintiff Counsel,

any fees or partial fees received by the Plaintiff are to be considered held in trust for, and

payable to, Plaintiff's Counsel.

Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $350.00.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 23 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 1
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-88,809-01
EX P ARTE TRAVIS REED, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. C-3-W011247- 1302271-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 3

OF TARRANT COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with
a child by contac t and sen t ence d to eight year s’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appea ls aff irmed the conviction. Ree d v. State , No. 02-14
- 0 0 4 4 4
- CR ( T e x. A p p.—For t Worth Aug
. 31, 2016) (not designated f

or publication). Applicant raises t en g rounds alleg ing ineffe ctive assistance of trial and appellate counsel. After a live hearing, the trial court signe d finding s of fac t and conclusions of law rec ommending that2

relief be denie d. This Court does not ad o p t the t rial court’s finding s and conclusions relating to Ground 8. Ba sed on the trial court’s other finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law, as well as this Court’s independe nt reviewof the e ntire re cord, w e deny relief
.
Filed: Jul y

3, 2019 Do not publish
#### JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

No. 192 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 710.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 August 1981.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00457-CV

Carolina Fernandez

v.

Adelante Holdings Ltd.

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-17-2061-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 2, 2017
#### Ollie WARREN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19655.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 9, 1965.

Ollie Warren, in pro. per.

John W. Bonner, U. S. Atty., Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.

Before BARNES and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.

*167PER CURIAM:

Ollie Warren, having been convicted and sentenced in federal court on his plea of guilty of the offense of breaking or attempting to break into a post office in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115 (1958), applied to the district court, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1958), for release from custody. The district court denied the application without granting Warren a hearing. Warren appeals, asserting that the district court erred in not granting him a hearing.

This is the second time Warren has appealed to this court from a district court order denying an application under section 2255. On the previous appeal we affirmed. Warren v. Richardson, 9 Cir., 333 F.2d 781.

In his new application, Warren makes allegations not included in his first application. Viewing these allegations as a whole, we think they are of such nature that Warren should have been accorded an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE v. EDWARDS

No. 161.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 421.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 December 1971.
No. _____________

In the

Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin 



No. 05-17-01135-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

for the

First District of Texas

at Dallas



No.067247-A

In the 15TH Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas



JOSE GUSTAVO CASTANEDA

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE 

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

APPELLANT, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(c) moves for an 

extension of time within which to file its petition for discretionary review. In 

support of its motion, appellant submits the following: 

PD-0242-18

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/5/2018 12:51 PM

Accepted 3/7/2018 11:42 AM

DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERK

 FILED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 3/7/2018 DEANA WILLIAMSON, CLERK 
1. Appellant was charged with the felony offense of possession of a 

controlled substance, and later placed on probation for a reduced 

offense of misdemeanor attempt to possess a controlled 

substance.

2. Appellant successfully completed his probation, but suffered 

immigration consequences due to the probation. Due to those 

consequences, he filed a writ of habeas corpus that was denied by 

the 15th Judicial District Court of Grayson County, Texas.

3. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas rendered judgment 

in an unpublished opinion on 21st day of February, 2018, 

affirming appellant’s conviction and sentence. 

5. Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is due March 8, 2018. 

6. Appellant seeks an extension, in accordance with TEX. R. APP. 

P. 68.2(c), until April 8, 2016, to file its petition for discretionary 

review. This is appellant’s first request for an extension. 

9. Appellant is currently in the custody of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement awaiting an immigration hearing. Although a copy 

of the Judgement and Order with instructions were sent to 

Appellant on February 23, 2018, a green card has not yet been 

received. In an abundance of caution, a new copy with 

instructions for PDR has been sent today.

WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that this Court will grant the 

requested extension until April 8, 2018. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kimberley Miller Ryan

Kimberley Miller Ryan 

for Jose Gustavo Castaneda

110 S. Bolivar St. B2

Marshall, TX 75670

kimryanlaw@gmail.com

(903) 471-0816 phone

(888) 753-8808 fax
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, this certifies that on the 5

th day of 

March, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was delivered to the attorneys in this 

matter.

/s/ Kimberley Miller Ryan

Kimberley Miller Ryan 

for Jose Gustavo Castaneda

110 S. Bolivar St. B2

Marshall, TX 75670

kimryanlaw@gmail.com

(903) 471-0816 phone

(888) 753-8808 fax
Case 3:10-cr-00043-MCR   Document 585   Filed 05/03/15   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                      TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, the undersigned, Samir N. Masri, who is
the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln International Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Sec.13(a) or Sec.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                   /s/: Samir N. Masri
                                   -------------------
                                   Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                   Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                   Date:  December 11, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2211

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to authorize the expansion of 
              the Appalachian development highway system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2019

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to authorize the expansion of 
              the Appalachian development highway system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fixing Our Country Roads Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    Section 14501 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence, by striking 
        ``three thousand and ninety miles'' and inserting ``the total 
        number of miles established by the Secretary under subsection 
        (h)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Expansion of the Appalachian Development Highway System.--As 
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
Secretary shall establish the total number of miles that is authorized 
to be constructed for the Appalachian development highway system under 
subsection (a) based on--
            ``(1) a report prepared by the Secretary before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection in which the Secretary describes 
        the total number of miles that should be authorized to be 
        constructed for the Appalachian development highway system 
        under subsection (a); or
            ``(2) if the Secretary determines that there is not an 
        existing report that addresses the matters described in 
        paragraph (1), a report prepared by the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Appalachian Regional Commission and 
        applicable State departments of transportation, as soon as 
        practicable after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
        that describes the total number of miles that should be 
        authorized to be constructed for the Appalachian development 
        highway system under subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 01105

- CV

Isabel Campbell, Appellant

v. Amanda Duffy Mabry, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Austin R. Duffy, Appellee Appealed from the Probate Court No

. 1 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 410,842

- 401). Opinion delivered by Justice Christopher. Chief Justice Frost and
Justice Busby also participating (Frost, C.J., dissenting)

.

TO THE PROBATE COURT NO

. 1 OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on January 2 2 , 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these
words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed No vember 26, 2013 in favor of appellee Amanda Duffy Mabry, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Austin R. Duffy, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore orde r the judgment of the court
below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedin gs in accordance with the
court’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee Amanda Duffy Mabry, Individually and as Independe nt Executrix of the Estate of Austin R. Duffy.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court

of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, April 3, 2015.