alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010037EN.01000101.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/1

---

2010/C 37/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1)

Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion for relief as a successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Bellamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bellamy’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 
3

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Bellamy’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023060
<NAME> LONE STAR ENERGY PLANT OPERATIONS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              18
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,294
<PP&E>                                             127
<DEPRECIATION>                                      57
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,021
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,384
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (200)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                       543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010217EN.01000402.xml

| 11.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5909 — Rettig/Nordkalk)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 217/03

On 6 August 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5909. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5909. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAFFIELD FISHERIES, INC.; MOTOR

VESSEL THREE BROTHERS, INC.;

MOTHER VESSEL CAPTAIN CARL, INC.;

MOTHER VESSEL LADY EVELYN, INC.;

MOTHER VESSEL FISHERMANS PRIDE,

INC.; and CAPTAIN SALTY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv114/RS-EMT

BP, PLC; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,

INC.; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY;

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP

AMERICA, INC.; TRANSOCEAN, LTD; TRANSOCEAN

OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.;

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.; TRANSOCEAN

HOLDINGS, LLC; HALLIBURTON ENERGY

SERVICES, INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM

CORP.; ANADARKO E&P COMPANY, L.P.; MOEX

USA CORPORATION; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC;

and CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

f/k/a/ COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

_________________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Motion For Stay Of Proceedings Pending Transfer By the Judicial

Panel Of Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. 20) filed by Defendants, BP Exploration & Production,

Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP Products North America, Inc.; and BP

America, Inc.

IT IS ORDERED that all activity in this case is stayed until further order by this court

pending a final determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
ORDERED on June 14, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Powergae, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Kovalenko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Date:  November 14, 2008 |  | By:  /s/ Andrew Kovalenko                                                                 
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |                                                                                           
|                         |  | Andrew Kovalenko
Chairman, President Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer)



26



|
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

BRICE BUILDING CO., INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 5-10-mc-4/RS-EMT 

WILLIAM DEL LEE, an individual, 

and TALMEDGE E. LEE, an individual, 

Defendants, 

and 

LANDMARK GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Garnishee. 

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Writ of Garnishment and 

Appointment of Special Process Server (Doc. 37). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 and 69, and Fla. Stat. § 77.01, et seq., the Clerk of 

the Court is directed to issue the Writ of Garnishment directed to the Garnishee, 

LANDMARK GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a), Mr. Charles Lance, an agent of L. Lance &

Associates, LLC, is appointed as the special process server who shall serve the 

Writ of Garnishment. 

ORDERED on January 7, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         427,240
<SECURITIES>                                   339,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,313,184
<PP&E>                                         250,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,313,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,391,849
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,088
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,272,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,313,184
<SALES>                                        828,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               828,732
<CGS>                                          717,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,143,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,113,822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,057,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,057,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. ODEN

No. 153 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 61.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 February 1980.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

BRICE BUILDING CO., INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 5-10-mc-4/RS-EMT 

WILLIAM DEL LEE, an individual, 

and TALMEDGE E. LEE, an individual, 

Defendants, 

and 

LANDMARK GENERAL CONTRACTORS, 

INC.

Garnishee. 

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Garnishment and Appointment of 

Special Process Server (Doc. 3). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 and 69, and Fla. Stat. § 77.01, et seq., the Clerk of 

the Court is directed to issue the Writ of Garnishment directed to the Garnishee, 

LANDMARK GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a), Mr. Charles Lance, an agent of L. Lance & 

Associates, LLC, is appointed as the special process server who shall serve the 

Writ of Garnishment. 

ORDERED on December 16, 2010

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEMETRIS O. THOMAS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv417/RV/EMT

EDWIN G. BUSS,

Respondent.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 26, 2011 (Doc. 14). Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. That this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with

an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00417-RV-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 1
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5309 

To amend the Second Morrill Act to authorize the transmission to Congress 

of annual reports prepared by colleges endowed under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2018 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 

and Mr. KELLY of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Second Morrill Act to authorize the transmission to Congress of annual reports prepared by colleges endowed under such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS OF ANNUAL SEC4 OND MORRILL ACT REPORTS. 

5 Section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 

6 325; commonly known as the Second Morrill Act), is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new sen8 tences: ‘‘Such annual report shall further include the 

9 amount of Federal and State allotments such college reVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:40 Mar 28, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5309.IH H5309

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5309 IH

1 ceived in the preceding fiscal year under the Hatch Act 

2 of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.) and the Smith-Lever Act 

3 (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.). The Secretary of Agriculture shall 

4 transmit to Congress an annual report that includes the 

5 Federal and State allotments each such college reported 

6 pursuant to the preceding sentence for such year.’’ 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1





Certification Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Jeff Ritchie, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation;



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



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: September 23, 2009



/s/  Jeff Ritchie

Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer, and Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1547

ELIZABETH CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. D. HILL, in his individual and official

capacity; E. EAGLE, in his individual and

official capacity; CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST

VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

FREDERICK MARSHALL, individually,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-404-2)

Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Elizabeth Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Darley Annand,

George Kenneth Robertson, SHUMAN, ANNAND, BAILEY, WYANT & EARLES,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Crawford appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Defendants in Crawford’s civil rights case,

and denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Crawford v. Hill, No. CA-98-404-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 1999). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.3



LETTER OF CONSENT



We hereby consent to the
reference to our reports, as detailed below, in the annual report on form 20-F of XTL Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter: “XTL”)
for the year ending December 31, 2014, dated April 26, 2015.



| | · | Impairment examination study of InterCure’s intangible assets, dated March 31, 2014
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | · | Impairment examination study of XTL’s intangible asset, dated March 25, 2015
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ BDO Ziv Haft Consulting and Management
Ltd.



Tel Aviv, Israel

April 19, 2015
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTINA J MARQUIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00217-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to file

an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 9.) Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1, counsel has

conferred with counsel for the Plaintiff, who has no objection to the requested extension

of time. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Defendant

shall file his answer on or before February 14, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of January, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge