alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011350EN.01000101.xml

| 1.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2011/C 350/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.11.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.33699 (11/N) |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Guarantee scheme |
| Legal basis | Lov nr. 571 af 1. juli 2002 om Vækstfonden, med senere ændringer, bekendtgørelse nr. 1013 af 17. august 2007 om Vækstfondens virke, samt Aktstykke nr. 1 vedtaget af Finansudvalget den 30. oktober 2009. |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | — |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | 1.1.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture, forestry and fishing |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Vækstfonden |
| Strandvejen 104 A |
| 2900 Hellerup |
| DANMARK |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.11.2011

Reference number of State Aid

SA.33699 (11/N)

Member State

Denmark

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Guarantee scheme

Legal basis

Lov nr. 571 af 1. juli 2002 om Vækstfonden, med senere ændringer, bekendtgørelse nr. 1013 af 17. august 2007 om Vækstfondens virke, samt Aktstykke nr. 1 vedtaget af Finansudvalget den 30. oktober 2009.

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

—

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

—

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

1.1.2012-31.12.2012

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

Vækstfonden

Strandvejen 104 A

2900 Hellerup

DANMARK

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

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

No. 19
- 6268

JOHN KEITH SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DOCTOR INDER JEET SINGH GUJRAL , Defendant

- Appellee , and
WANDA ROLLINS; C. WEBB , Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00293

- HEH

- RCY )

Submitted : July 19, 2019 Decided: August 5, 2019

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

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John Keith Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ramon Rodriguez, III, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for App ellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Keith Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Doctor Inder Gujral in Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Smith v. Gujral , No. 3:16

- cv
- 00293

- HEH

- RCY (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 7 of 7
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

Nos. 04-21-00216-CR and 04-21-00217-CR

John David BABYAK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2018CR9102 and 2018CR9104

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

CONSOLIDATION ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 

04-21-00216-CR and 04-21-00217-CR consolidated. 

The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but 

put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. The cases must be argued together in one brief, 

as in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be 

argued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit 

for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, 

opinion, and mandate.

However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain 

separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material 

must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DIANA BRENNEN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00083-MP-AK

GROUP SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SHANDS TEACHING

HOSPITAL AND CLINICS INC, HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE

COMPANY, SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS INC,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on (Second) Motion for Extension of Time to File

Answer, Doc. 22. Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”)

moves for a further twenty-one (21) day extension to respond to the Amended Complaint, Doc.

10. Hartford requests this second extension in order adequately to research and respond to Count

II, in which Plaintiff alleges she has been prevented from filing her disability claim, and is

therefore excused from exhausting her administrative remedies under ERISA. Plaintiff does not

object to the extension. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. (Second) Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 22, is GRANTED. 

2. Defendant Hartford shall respond to the Amended Complaint no later than close

of business, August 16, 2010. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

       In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of CHINA
FUHUA NEW MATERIAL HOLDINGS INC.   (the
"Company") for the quarter ending September 30,
2008, I, Ming Xu, President of the Company hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

       1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending September 30, 2008, 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 such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 13, 2008

/s/ Ming Xu
Ming Xu, President (Principal executive and financial
officer)
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2296 

To reauthorize the Pregnancy Assistance Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Pregnancy Assistance Fund. 

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 ‘‘Pregnancy Assistance 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREGNANCY ASSISTANCE FUND. 

7 Section 10214 of the Patient Protection and Afford8 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18204) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘2010 through 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2020 through 

10 2024’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 14
- 00 028
- CV



### _________________
IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original mandamus proceeding Mujtaba Ali Khan (“Khan”) contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a show cause hearing for alleged violation s of two temporary injunction orders (“the temporary injunction order s ”). See Xenon Anesthesia of Tex. P.L.L.C. v. Xenon Health L.L.C. , No. 09

- 12

- 005 53

- CV, 2013 WL 1279408, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Mar. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. Khan argues the temporary injunction orders are void because the trial court granted Khan’s motion for continuance and re

- set the trial date to a later date than the tria l dates contained in the temporary injunction orders. The trial court reset the trial date for February 10, 2014. Khan asks this Court to issue a2 temporary stay of the trial court proceedings and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court (1) to vacate its order setting the show cause hearing, and (2) to dissolve the temporary injunctions. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and the mandamus record, we conclude that the relator has not established an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); I n re CI Host, Inc. , 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding)

. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief

. See Tex. R.App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered January 16, 2014 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KEVIN ANTHONY MOORE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv38/RH/EMT

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a civil rights

complaint (see Doc. 1). The court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct.

1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). 

Plaintiff has failed to use the court-approved form for filing his complaint. Local Rule 5.1(J)

for the Northern District of Florida states that the court will not accept for consideration a civil

action commenced by pro se litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless the appropriate complaint form

has been properly completed, signed, and filed by the litigant. Thus, Plaintiff must file his complaint

on the form, even if he wishes to attach separate pages explaining the facts that underlie the

complaint.

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must completely fill out a new civil rights

complaint form, marking it “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must limit his allegations to claims

related to the same basic incident or issue and name as Defendants only those persons who are

responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff must place their names in the style of

the case on the first page of the civil rights complaint form, and include their addresses and

employment positions in the “Parties” section of the form. In the statement of facts, Plaintiff should

clearly describe how each named Defendant is involved in each alleged constitutional violation,
Page 2 of 2

alleging the claims as to each Defendant in separately numbered paragraphs and including specific

dates and times of the alleged unconstitutional acts. If Plaintiff cannot state exactly how a particular

Defendant harmed him, he should delete or drop that person as a Defendant from his complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request for relief should be limited to only that which he could recover if he succeeds on

his claims. Plaintiff is advised that once an amended complaint is filed, all earlier complaints and

filings are disregarded. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 15.1.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk of court is directed to forward to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form for

use by non-prisoners in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1346. This

case number should be written on the form.

2. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall

file an amended civil rights complaint, which shall be typed or clearly written, submitted on the

court form, and titled “Amended Complaint.”

3. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint may result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of March 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 5:10cv38/RH/EMT
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 24, 2013

NO. 03-12-00190-CV

Peter Hellmuth Eggert, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the trial 

court’s judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s 

judgment is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Daniel J. Heneghan, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Intersil Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this annual 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 overfinancial 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
#### STATE v. JOHNSON

No. 178 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 248.

Application by defendant for further review denied 2 June 1981.
\~ 

Tira Misu, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

MAY 262009 

Clerk Us Bank . . District and 

rUPtcy Courts 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 09 0970 

Suthpin Courthouse, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth 

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 

only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least 

plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to 

plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff, a resident of College Point, New York, sues a defendant based in New York for 

negligence and defamation. She demands $10 million in monetary damages. The complaint 

neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the 

parties are not of diverse citizenship. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A separate 

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. I 

I 

Date: May +, 2009 !united Stat District Judge
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement No. 333-88842 on Form S-8 for Ohio Legacy Corp, the Ohio Legacy Corp
Omnibus Stock Option, Stock Ownership and Long Term Incentive Plan, of our
report dated February 12, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Ohio Legacy Corp as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
years then ended.

                                          Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 19, 2003
Presidential Documents

56871 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 192 

Thursday, October 4, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of September 28, 2007 

Assignment of Specified Reporting and Determination Functions Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and 

Certain Education Abroad 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of Defense[, and] 

the Director of National Intelligence 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United 

States Code, I hereby assign to the Secretary of State the functions of the 

President under sections 2041(d)(3), 2042(c)(1), 2042(d), and 2043(c)(1) of 

the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 

(Public Law 110–53)(the ‘‘9/11 Act’’) and section 7114(b)(6) of the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458), as 

amended. 

The Secretary of State shall consult with: 

(1) the Secretary of Defense in the performance of the functions in section 

2041(d)(3) of the 9/11 Act; and 

(2) the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence 

in the performance of the functions in section 2043(c)(1) of the 9/11 

Act. 

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 28, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–4952 

Filed 10–3–07; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
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 June 1, 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”), Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”): Cooperative Research Group on High Efficiency Dilute Gasoline Engine (“HEDGE”) 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, Honda R&D Co., Ltd, Tochigi Prefecture, JAPAN has been added as a party 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 HEDGE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 10, 2005, HEDGE 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 July 7, 2005 (70 FR 39339-39340).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 5, 2007. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 7, 2007 (72 FR 25782).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-5559 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M