alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015096EN.01001001.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (representing a wolf’s head)

representing a wolf’s head

(Case T-570/10 RENV) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Atkins, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

| 3. | Orders Société Elmar Wolf to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Société Elmar Wolf to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

1

---
Cust omer Service Hotline: 1 - 800- 438 -2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029

May 13, 2010 Mr. Ali Mirzahkhalili, Administrator Air Quality

Management Division of Air and Waste Management Departme nt of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 89 Kings Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 Dear Mr. Mirzakhalili : On April 16, 2010, U.S. E nvironmental P rotection A gency (EPA) received a revision to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SI P) from the Dep artment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control amending Section 3.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 to cite explicitly that nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a precursor to the formation of ground

- level ozone. EPA has determined that the submittal is administrativ ely and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice ( D FRN) action. If members of your staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Sharon McCauley , Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at (215) 814

- 3376

. She i s the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ David L . Arnold , Acting Division Director A ir Protection Division
#### § 93.429 Ruminants for immediate slaughter.

Ruminants, other than sheep and goats, may be imported from Mexico, subject to the applicable provisions of §§ 93.424, 93.425, 93.426, and 93.427(b)(2) for immediate slaughter if accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405(a) and stating that the veterinarian who issued the certificate has inspected the animals in the herd from which the ruminants will be imported and found them free of evidence of communicable disease, and that, so far as it has been possible to determine, they have not been exposed to any such disease common to animals of their kind during the preceding 60 days, and if the ruminants are shipped by rail or truck, the certificate shall further specify that the ruminants were loaded into cleaned and disinfected cars or trucks for transportation directly to the port of entry. Such ruminants shall be moved from the port of entry in conveyances sealed with seals of the United States Government. Sheep and goats from any part of Mexico may be imported only in compliance with other applicable sections in this part.

[55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990, as amended at 57 FR 28081, June 24, 1992; 61 FR 17239, Apr. 19, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 56012, 56019, Oct. 28, 1997]
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States Distric

for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1869 John Erwin Beck, * * v. * District of Minnesota. * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee.

___________ Filed: September 11, 1996 Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. civil forfeitures of cash seized in connection with hi arres John Erwin Beck pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting th possession 6 s United States v Beck th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Table). Beck then filed 28 U n Brady v. Maryland . 87 (1 denied the motion, and Bec 1

We ieve the district court properly denied Beck's motio without an evidentiary hearing-2-

we conclude the motion, files, and records of the case concl usively show Be ck is not entitled to relief. See Holloway v. Unite d States , 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review). Beck's double jeopardy argumen t is foreclosed for the reasons se t forth in United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-4 9 (1996) (holding civil forfeitu res under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) and (7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Doubl e JeopardyClause). We agree with the district court that counse l was not ineffective for failing to raise the double jeopardy claim. See Rodr iguez v. United States , 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994 ) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursu e merit less argument). We also agree there is no merit to Beck' s claim that the government should have disclosed the fact, an d legal effect, of the prior forfeitures. See Brady , 373 U.S. at 8 7 (gover nment must disclose favorable evidence that is material t o either guilt or punishment); United States v. Bagley , 473 U. S. 667, 682 (1 985) (evidence is material only if there is reasonabl e probability result of proceeding would have been different had it been disclosed to defense); United States v. Manthei , 979 F. 2d 124, 127 (8th Cir. 1992) ( Bradyis not violated where defendant wa s aware of evidence prior to trial). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended
March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Krakoff, 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, to the best of my knowledge,:

|By: |  | /s/ROBERT L. KRAKOFFRobert L. Krakoff
Chief Executive Officer
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Date: December 6, 2002                                       

---

QuickLinks
# C_2011219EN.01001701.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Companhia Previdente v Commission

(Case T-414/10 R)

(Interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - Financial loss - Lack of exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 219/25

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Companhia Previdente — Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras S.A. (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Proença de Carvalho and J. Caimoto Duarte, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre. V. Bottka and P. Costa de Olivera, Agents, assisted by M. J. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to establish a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                               WESTERN ATLAS INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  JURISDICTION        PERCENTAGE
                                                       OF                 OF
         NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                       INCORPORATION        OWNERSHIP
         ------------------                       -------------        ---------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>
         Western Research Holdings, Inc.            Delaware             100
         Western Atlas International, Inc.          Delaware             100
         PetroAlliance Services Company, Ltd.       Cyprus                50
</TABLE>

The Registrant has additional operating subsidiaries which, considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, do not constitute a significant subsidiary.

All above-listed subsidiaries were consolidated in the Registrant's financial
statements.



                                      E-2
# C_2007056EN.01002701.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission

(Case T-472/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Promotion - Judgment annulling the decision not to promote the applicant - Re-examination of the merits - Reasons)

(2007/C 56/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Volos, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communties (represented by: G. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 23 December 2003 insofar as it did not include the applicant's name on the list of officials proposed for promotion for 1999, or on the list of officials considered the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 for 1998 and 1999, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in 1998 or 1999

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2003 insofar as it did not include the applicant's name on the list of officials considered the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 for 1998 and 1999, on the one hand, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in 1998 or 1999, on the other; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2003 insofar as it did not include the applicant's name on the list of officials considered the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 for 1998 and 1999, on the one hand, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in 1998 or 1999, on the other;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

1

---
# C_2012355EN.01002602.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/26

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission

(Case T-501/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Italian pay-TV market - Decision modifying the commitments attached to a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement - Call for tenders for the award of digital terrestrial television frequencies in Italy - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 355/56

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Telecom Italia Media Broadcasting Srl (TI Media Broadcasting) (Rome, Italy) and Telecom Italia Media SpA (TI Media) (Rome) (represented by: B. Caravita di Toritto, L. Sabelli, F. Pace and A. d’Urbano, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Gencarelli and P. Manzini, and subsequently L. Malferrari and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Sky Italia Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4976 final of 20 July 2010 modifying the commitments attached to a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement (Case COMP/M.2876).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the first and fourth heads of claim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the first and fourth heads of claim.

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
119121M IMENUMBEAREI 

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge 

Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

Germin R. Cordon 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
# C_2010301EN.01001301.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Tomasz Ziolkowski v Land Berlin

(Case C-424/10)

()

2010/C 301/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tomasz Ziolkowski

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the first sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as conferring on Union citizens who have resided legally for more than five years on the basis only of national law in the territory of a Member State, but who did not during that period fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, a right of permanent residence in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the first sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as conferring on Union citizens who have resided legally for more than five years on the basis only of national law in the territory of a Member State, but who did not during that period fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, a right of permanent residence in that Member State?

1

| 2. | Are periods of residence of Union citizens in the host Member State which took place before the accession of their Member State of origin to the European Union also to be counted towards the period of lawful residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are periods of residence of Union citizens in the host Member State which took place before the accession of their Member State of origin to the European Union also to be counted towards the period of lawful residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p 77.

1

---
Together, America Prospers

State Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund

What does this 

program do?

This program helps State 

governments establish and support 

revolving loan funds to provide 

a more cost-effective means 

of purchasing fuel for remote 

communities that are not served by 

surface transportation (highways, 

transit systems, railways, and 

waterways) year round.

Who may apply 

for this program?

• State governments

How may funds be used?

Funds may be used to capitalize a 

revolving loan fund (RLF) that helps 

remote communities purchase bulk fuel.

How do we get started?

• Applications for this program are 

accepted through our National Office 

• Call (202) 720-9545 for details

• The application deadline is set 

each year by a Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) 

° The deadline for Fiscal Year 2014 

is August 1, 2014 NOFA 2014 

• Program Resources are available 

online (i.e., forms, guidance, 

certifications, etc.)

Who can answer questions?

• Call (202) 720-9545.

• Call the Rural Electric Program staff:

° Northern U.S. Division at 

(202) 720-1025

° Southern U.S. Division at 

(202) 720-0800

What governs this program?

• Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as 

amended in 7 U.S.C. 901

• Code of Federal Regulations 

7 CFR 1709

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, please 

always consult the program instructions listed in the section above titled “What 

Governs This Program?” You may also contact your local office for assistance. You 

will find additional forms, resources, and program information at rd.usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Last Updated December 2019
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00137 - CR

DONALD AUSTIN MARTIN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- -- A jury convicted Appellant Donald Austin Martin of possessing with intent to deliver more than four but less than two hundred grams of methamphetamine and possessing more than four ounces but less than five pounds of marijuana. See Tex. Health & Safety Co de Ann. § § 481.112(a), (d) , 481.121(a), (b)(3) (Vernon 2010 )

. The jury assessed Martin’s punishment at fifty years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine for the methamphetamine offense and twenty

-

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

four months’ confinement and a $10,000 fine for the marijuana offense . T he trial court sentenced him accordingly

. Martin ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court inform ed Martin that he may file a pro se brief, and he has done so. 2 Martin has also filed a ―Motion to Suspend a Rule,‖ a ―Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief,‖ and a ―Motion f or a [ Bledso e ] Hearing t o Excuse Appellate Counsel Ottaway and Appoint N ew Counsel.‖ T he State declined to submit a brief in response to the Anders brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obli gated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdra w. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

2 Martin raises two issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and two issues challenging the enhancement allegations.3

We hav e carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief , and each of the issues raised by Martin in his pro se brief . We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , deny as moot Martin’s ―Motion to Suspend a Rule‖ a nd ―Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief,‖ deny Martin’s ―Motion f or a [ Bledsoe ] Hearing t o Excuse Appellate Couns el Ottaway and Appoint N ew Counsel,‖ and affirm the trial court’s judgment s

.

BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: December 2, 2010