alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018104EN.01000501.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-314/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Driving licences - Definitions of categories C1, C and D1))

(2018/C 104/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By failing to comply with the obligation to ensure that the definition of categories C1 and C covers only motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to comply with the obligation to ensure that the definition of categories C1 and C covers only motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;

| 2. | By restricting the definition of category D1 to motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(h) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

By restricting the definition of category D1 to motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(h) of that directive;

| 3. | The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2022

No. 04-22-00711-CV

IN RE Julian CARRION, Relator

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, relator’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss his petition for a writ of mandamus as moot is GRANTED. Relator’s petition 

for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2022.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of December, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021-CI-05288, styled Carla Mulder v. Julian Carrion and Crestbrook 

Insurance Company d/b/a Nationwide Private Client, pending in the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


February 26, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2071


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2071 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-253299 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
# C_2017382EN.01002501.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

(Case C-503/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC - Theft of a vehicle - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian - Civil liability - Compensation - Compulsory insurance cover - Exclusion clauses - National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers - Compatibility with those directives - Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’))

(2017/C 382/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes

Applicant:

Defendant: Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excluded from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
GMX Resources Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-106311) on Form S-8 of GMX Resources Inc. of our report dated April 6, 2004,
except as to Note L which is as of April 14, 2004 with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of GMX Resources Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and
2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-KSB of GMX Resources
Inc.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for asset retirement
obligations.

                                    KPMG LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 14, 2004
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 873 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 129) providing 

for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 

relating to ‘‘Restoring Internet Freedom’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2018 

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

129) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted 

by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 

‘‘Restoring Internet Freedom’’. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the House shall resolve into the Committee of the 

3 Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration 

4 of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 129) providing for con5 gressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

6 States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Commu7 nications Commission relating to ‘‘Restoring Internet 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 873 IH 

1 Freedom’’. The first reading of the joint resolution shall 

2 be dispensed with. All points of order against consider3 ation of the joint resolution are waived. General debate 

4 shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall not ex5 ceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 

6 and ranking minority member of the Committee on En7 ergy and Commerce. After general debate the joint resolu8 tion shall be considered for amendment under the five9 minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 

10 joint resolution are waived. At the conclusion of consider11 ation of the joint resolution for amendment the Committee 

12 shall rise and report the joint resolution to the House with 

13 such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 

14 question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolu15 tion and amendments thereto to final passage without in16 tervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 

17 without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises 

18 and reports that it has come to no resolution on the joint 

19 resolution, then on the next legislative day the House 

20 shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 

21 under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee 

22 of the Whole for further consideration of the joint resolu23 tion. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 873 IH 

1 SEC. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

2 the consideration of House Joint Resolution 129. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 21, 2012

s1218

Order 

December 21, 2012

146217

BASEL ALMUTAWA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146217

COA: 306853

Wayne CC Family Division:

03-307363-DM

PAOLA MEYERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.3.c

AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated effective September 28, 2020 and amends the Employment Agreement by and between Umpqua Bank and the undersigned officer (as previously amended, the “Employment Agreement”).


1.         The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the term of the Employment Agreement, which is set to expire December 31, 2020.


2          The duration of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and extended to December 31, 2024, unless sooner terminated as set forth in the Employment Agreement.


3.         Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as written.


            UMPQUA BANK




            By:       /s/ Cort O’Haver           
            Name:  Cort O’Haver               
            Title:    Chief Executive Officer                         


            OFFICER




            /s/ Tory Nixon              
            Name:  Tory Nixon
No. 54546.

#### Pennsylvania Drilling Company *v.*United States,

petition 6775-R (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that the merchandise was entered at the price at which it was purchased and paid for; that the invoices and everything were presented to the appraiser; and that at that time it was believed that the entered value was correct, but it later developed that a. trade discount should have been included in the entered value. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XIII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 23, 2009         



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams
|Douglas P. Williams    
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 23, 2009
# C_2015302EN.01006402.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/64

---

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)

(Case T-374/15)

(2015/C 302/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Baldham, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ — Community trade mark No 8 770 042

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 418/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Before the Second Division,

November 13, 1952

No. 56929.

#### Millard A. Ring *v.*United States,

protest 165421-K (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of articles of which metal is the component material of chief value, other than ores or concentrates or crude metal, which were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting, and that they have been used in remanufacture by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
# C_2016068EN.01002901.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/29

---

Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)

(Case T-627/15)

(2016/C 068/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, and E. Montelione, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BIANCALUNA’ — Application for registration No 11 251 808

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2952/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and/or

| — | remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;

| — | Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison.

---
Before the First Division,

July 13, 1951

No. 55754.

protests 167163-K, etc. (New York).

#### Heller Hope Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1529 was sustained.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRAULIO RIVERA-ANDRACA, a.k.a.

Jorge Perez-Ortiz,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10165

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00080-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Braulio Rivera-Andraca appeals form the 22-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

FILED

APR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10165

(1967), Rivera-Andraca’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided

the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
**C H**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0030 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WELCH ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including May 25 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court April 11 2023

04/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0030