alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TURNER v. EPES TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

No. 331P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 197.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982.
# CE2012247EN.01002101.xml

| 17.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 247/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 247/21

---

Thursday 24 March 2011Exercise of Parliament's rights vis-à-vis the Court of Justice (interpretation of Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure)

P7_TA(2011)0119

European Parliament decision of 24 March 2011 concerning the exercise of Parliament's rights vis-à-vis the Court of Justice (interpretation of Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure)

2012/C 247 E/07

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the letter of 22 March 2011 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of 22 March 2011 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

| — | having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 128:
  ‘Rule 90(6) of the Rules of Procedure lays down a specific procedure by means of which Parliament can take a decision on whether to exercise its prerogative, pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of an international agreement with the Treaties; that provision constitutes a “lex specialis” which takes precedence over the general provision laid down in Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure.
  When a decision must be taken as to whether Parliament should exercise its rights vis-à-vis the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the act in question is not covered by Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure, the procedure provided for in this rule should apply, mutatis mutandis.’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 128:

‘Rule 90(6) of the Rules of Procedure lays down a specific procedure by means of which Parliament can take a decision on whether to exercise its prerogative, pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of an international agreement with the Treaties; that provision constitutes a “lex specialis” which takes precedence over the general provision laid down in Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure.

When a decision must be taken as to whether Parliament should exercise its rights vis-à-vis the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the act in question is not covered by Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure, the procedure provided for in this rule should apply, mutatis mutandis.’;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, for information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, for information.

---
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 30      Filed 04/23/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 30      Filed 04/23/2008     Page 2 of 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2374 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to include a prohibition 

on the listing of a living nonnative species as a threatened species 

or an endangered species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2019 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to include 

a prohibition on the listing of a living nonnative species 

as a threatened species or an endangered species, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Saving America’s Vul5 nerable and Endangered Species Act’’ or the ‘‘SAVES 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2374 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LISTING OF LIVING NONNATIVE 

2 SPECIES AS THREATENED SPECIES OR EN3 DANGERED SPECIES. 

4 (a) LIMITATION.—The Endangered Species Act of 

5 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 19. PROHIBITION ON LISTING OF LIVING NONNATIVE 

8 SPECIES AS THREATENED SPECIES OR EN9 DANGERED SPECIES. 

10 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec11 retary shall not list under section 4(c) any living nonnative 

12 species.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con14 tents for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

15 prec. 1531) is amended by inserting after the item relating 

16 to section 17 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 18. Annual cost analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

‘‘Sec. 19. Prohibition on listing of living nonnative species as threatened species 

or endangered species.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Flickering Star
Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ginger B. Quealy, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated: December 02, 2005                  By: /s/ GINGER B. QUEALY
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Ginger B. Quealy
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO FLICKERING STAR FINANCIAL, INC.,
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY FLICKERING STAR FINANCIAL, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Paul Gerard Turner, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement. By:
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    Director
Date:              June 30, 2005
#### STATE v. SUMRELL

No. 29 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 502.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
#### STATE v. SCOTT

No. 60 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 277.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 March 1978.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kathy Procopio, being the Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

2.   I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2003 of SaVi Media Group, Inc.;

3.   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;

4.   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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

5.    The Company'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 Company 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 Company, 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.   [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

c.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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

d.   Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
and

6.   The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company'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 Company'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 Company's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: April 13, 2005

/s/ Kathy Procopio
Kathy Procopio, Chief Financial Officer
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al

vs

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al

Case No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT

ORDER

TO: Steve Schonberg

Your document, MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR STEVE SCHONBERG FOR

ADMISSION TO THE COURT’S CM/ECF SYSTEM (received 3/30/10), was referred to

the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

(a) The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by

Rule 5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing

proper service.

(b) Access to the CM/ECF System requires a PACER account with proper

registration and fee payment. Only admitted attorneys can file

electronically. 

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The document shall remain in the electronic file, but the court will not

consider it until you have corrected the above deficiencies through the

filing of a corrected document. The document is DENIED without

prejudice, with leave given to refile after correction.

(2) The submitted hard copy of the document shall be returned to you by the

Clerk.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2010.

 /s Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. PREVETTE

No. 128 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 450.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 January 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 January 1980.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2018

No. 04-18-00007-CR

IN RE Ruben SERNA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On January 5, 2018, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on January 9, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2015CR9771 2016CR10100 2017CR1340A, styled The State of Texas v. 

Ruben Serna, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore 

presiding.
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more.  The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each applications is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other prior issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2007. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.
 
 
 —
Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion**Modification to Special Permits**10481-M
M-1 Engineering Limited Bradfrod, West Yorkshire
4
11-30-200714167-M
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
1, 3, 4
11-30-2007**New Special Permit Applications**14385-N
Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO
4
11-30-200714442-N
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
4
11-30-200714483-N
WEW Westerwaelder Eisenwerk, Weitefeld, Germany
4
11-30-200714504-N
Medis Technologies Ltd., New York, NY
1
11-30-200714505-N
Arkema, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
4
11-30-200714500-N
Northwest Respiratory Services, St. Paul, MN
4
11-30-200714457-N
Amtrol Alfa Metalomecanica SA, Portugal
4
10-31-200714436-N
BNSF Railway Company, Topeka, KS
4
11-30-200714402-N
Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE
1
12-31-2007


[FR Doc. 07-5081 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
#### EMMA FORBES TWIFORD and husband, LOUIS TWIFORD v. ARTHUR HARRISON and wife, ANN JONES HARRISON.

(Filed 18 September 1963.)

Appeal and Error § 29—

Where appellant serves no statement oí ease on appeal on appellee and no ease on appeal is settled by bbe court, there is no proper statement of case on appeal, and the Supreme Court can review only the record proper for errors appearing upon its face. The provisions of GvS. 1-282 and G.S. 1-283 are mandatory.

Appeal by defendants from *Sink, E.J.,*January 1963 Term of Cuebitucic.

Plaintiffs instituted this action as a special proceeding under Chapter 38 of the General Statutes to establish the boundary line between lands which they alleged were owned by Emma Forbes Twiford and the defendants. Defendants denied plaintiff's title and alleged sole ownership in themselves. Thereafter the cause proceeded as an action to quiet title under G.S. 41-10. A compulsory reference was ordered at the January 1963 term. The referee duly heard the matter, concluded that the defendants were the owners of the land in dispute, and filed his report. The plaintiffs excepted to his findings and conclusions, tendered issues, and demanded a jury trial. Upon the trial, the jury answered YES to the following issue:

“Are the petitioners, Emma Forbes Twiford and Louis Twiford, the owners of the land shown on the Court map enclosed within the lines from A to B to C to D to E to A?”

From judgment entered on the verdict defendants appealed.

*Frank B. Aycock, Jr. and Gerald F. White for plaintiff appellees.*

*F. V. Dunstan and J. W. Jennette for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The transcript of appeal certified to this Court contains no narrative statement of the evidence before the referee or the Superior Court. It contains neither exhibits, muniments of title, nor the court map which was evidently the hub of the trial. There is only a purported summary entitled “Statement of Case on Appeal” in which, on one mimeographed page, counsel profess to abridge the 234 pages of testimony before the referee. In addition to this statement and the record proper, the transcript includes the judge’s charge and five assignments of error which are either formal or are not presented by the record.

*218The record shows that no case on appeal has been settled by the judge or by counsel. Indeed, it reveals that none was ever prepared in the form required by statute and the rules of this Court. When a proper statement of case on appeal has not been certified here, the Supreme Court can determine only whether error appears on the face of the record proper. The provisions of G.S. 1-282 and G.S. 1-283 are mandatory. *Wiggins v. Tripp,*253 N.C. 171, 116 S.E. 2d 355. No error appearing in the record proper, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed and this appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE v. HUFF

No. 265P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 721.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
#### HARRIS v. HARRIS

No. 424PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 314.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 21 September 1982.
Donald E. Watnick (DW 6019) 

LAW OFFICES OF DONALD WATNICK 

292 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor 

New York, New York 10017 

(212) 213-6886 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Christian Augustin von Hassell 

a/k/a Agostino von Hassell 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------------------------------- -----X 

CHRISTIAN AUGUSTIN VON HASSELL a/k/a : 

AGOSTINO VON HASSELL, : 07 Civ.3477 (LAK) 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 - against - : 

 : DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ALAIN SAINT-SAËNS and UNIVERSITY : 

PRESS OF THE SOUTH, INC., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 : 

-------------------------------------------------------------- X 

This action having been commenced on May 1, 2007 by the filing of the Summons and 

Complaint, and an Amended Complaint having been filed on May 30, 2007, and a copy of the 

Summons and Amended Complaint having been served upon defendant Alain Saint-Saens 

(“Saint-Saens”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 4(e), which incorporates N.Y.C.P.L.R. 313 and 308(4), 

by affixing it to the door of his actual place of business and dwelling place or usual place on July 

16, 2007, and mailing it to his actual place of business and residence on July 30, 2007, and proof 

of service having been filed on August 13, 2007, and defendant Saint-Saens not having answered 

the Amended Complaint, and the time for answering the Amended Complaint having expired, and 

the Clerk having entered a Certificate of Default on September 5, 2007, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUGED AND DECREEED: That the plaintiff shall have judgment against 

defendant Saint-Saens on each of the alleged causes of action in the Amended Complaint, in an 

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK Document 10-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

amount determined by the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), in the amount of 

$_________, with interest at ___% from ___________ amounting to $_____, plus attorneys’ fees 

amounting to $__________, plus costs and disbursements of this action in the amount of 

$__________, amounting in all to $_______________. 

 

 Dated: New York, New York 

 September __, 2007 

 ________________ 

 U.S.D. J. 

 This document was entered on the docket on 

 __________ __, 2007 

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK Document 10-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 9, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00007

- CR

IN RE R uben SERNA

Or iginal Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On January 5, 2018 , relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered rela tor’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on January 9, 2018

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2015CR9771 2016CR10100 2017CR1340A, styled The State of Texas v.

Ruben Serna , pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore

presiding.