alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007155EN.01001701.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/17

---

Action brought on 22 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany

(Case C-245/07)

(2007/C 155/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period or by not informing the Commission of the adoption of all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC (2) on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system in national law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period or by not informing the Commission of the adoption of all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC (2) on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system in national law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

2

3

| — | The Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/50/EC expired on 30 April 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2004, L 116, p. 114.

1

(2)  OJ 1996, L 235, p. 6.

2

(3)  OJ 2001, L 110, p. 1.

3

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-11-00434-CR

 02-11-00435-CR

JASON ADRAIN ALVAREZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellant=s Motion To Withdraw The Appeal.” The 

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 15, 2011
(Reap. Dec. 8334)

#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 752322, etc.

(Decided September 23, 1954)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached ánd made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals to reappraisement listed herein are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the Country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*522On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 54774.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 111278-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2007170EN.01003102.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/31

---

Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM

(Case T-178/07)

(2007/C 170/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Européenne de traitement de l'Information SAS (Strasbourg, France) (represented by P. Greffe and J. Schouman, laywers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2007, Case R 1249/2006-1, in so far as it refused to grant its Community trade mark application CYBERHOME No 4 114 666 for part of the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2007, Case R 1249/2006-1, in so far as it refused to grant its Community trade mark application CYBERHOME No 4 114 666 for part of the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

| — | the granting of its Community trade mark application CYBERHOME No 4 114 666 for all the goods and services applied for |
| --- | --- |

—

the granting of its Community trade mark application CYBERHOME No 4 114 666 for all the goods and services applied for

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERHOME’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 666)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that, contrary to the Board of Appeal of OHIM's finding in the contested decision, its mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1).

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 


EASTERN DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No.2:11-CR-208 

VS. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

GREGORY RASHAD HOWARD 

ORDER 

This matter has come before the Court on Defendant Gregory Howard's 

Motion to Amend Judgment. The Court having considered the matter and being duly 

advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion 

should be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED the judgment entry shall accurately reflect this Court's ruling of 

December 9, 2011 that Mr. Howard's sentence is six months in the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons to be run concurrently to the remaining sentence imposed on case 

#2:06 CR 241(1), as well as any state court sentence; and it is further 

ORDERED that Mr. Howard receive jail time credit from July 8, 2011 to 

December 9,2011. 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cr-00208-GLF Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/28/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2007155EN.01000302.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-361/05) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Illegal and uncontrolled waste tips - Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón)

(2007/C 155/04)

Language of the Case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. del Cuvillo Contreras and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC, of 15 July 1975, on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón, situated in La Mojonera

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to ensure application of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste — as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 — and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with regard to the waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón (Province of Almería), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to ensure application of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste — as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 — and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with regard to the waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón (Province of Almería), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6780
DOUGLAS J. DODSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY A. O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00105-sgw) Submitted: August 21, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas J. Dodson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Douglas J. Dodson, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dodson v. O’Brien , No. 7:06-cv-00105-sgw (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2006). 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
6987

#### COLLETON MERCANTILE AND MANUFACTURING CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.

Carrier — Freight—Penalty—Constitutional Law — Presumptions.—•

From delivery by a carrier in tMs State of a part of an interstate shipment, without explanation of the loss of a part thereof, the loss is presumed to have occurred on the terminal carrier, and the application of the penal statute, 24 Stat., 81, to such case does not contravene the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

Before Gage, J., Colleton, December, 1907.

Affirmed.

Action by Colleton Mercantile and Manufacturing Company against Atlantic Coast Dine Railroad Company. From Circuit judgment, affirming judgment of Magistrate J. E. Bryan, defendant appeals.

*Messrs. P. A. Willcox*and *J. B. Peurifoy,*for appellant.

*Mr. Willcox*cites: 91 U. S., 279; 163 U. S-, 142; 146 U. S., 122; 196 U. S-, 194.

*Mr. I. G.*Padgett, contra,

cites: 73 S'. C., 71, 140', 542; 78 S. C., 167.

The opinion in this case was filed August 4, 1908, but remittitur held up on application for writ of error to United States Supreme Court. No action was taken, and the Reporter casually learned the case had been settled- and application for writ of error abandoned on

January 8, 1909.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The sole question presented in this case is whether the penalty statute of 1893 (24 St. at Large, p. 81) violates the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution in so far as it relates to the failure *122to adjust claim for loss' of freight shipped from a point in New York to Walterboro, in this State. A part of the single shipment of hats was delivered by defendant to plaintiff at destination, and in the absence of explanatory evidence the presumption is that the loss occurred while the goods were in possession of defendant. The statute was designed to effectuate an important public purpose, with respect to the duty of common carriers in this State, and the delict penalized occurred in this State. It has been several times decided that the statute in question does not interfere with interstate commerce. *Charles*v. *Railway Co.,*78 S. C., 36, 58 S. E., 927; *Venning*v. *A. C. L. R. R. Co.,*78 S. C., 57, 58 S. E., 983, 12 L. R. A. (N. *S.),*1217; *Von lehre*v. *A. C. L. R. Co.,*78 S. C., 167, 168, 59 S. E., 1135.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6569]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-373-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Wyoming Interstate Company, LTD 
(WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 2, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 64 to become effective 
May 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ed8dbccddd1f0f2f7f0fbcdebeeeef1eceadef8fbecfdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e282b3c2d21000207000b3d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6569 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00259

- CR

Micha el John Covarrubias

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1226934D )

September 25 , 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DI STRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Isaiah M. Merrell, Trustee.

*{Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Schools—Appeal from refusal to vote tax.

A failure to serve on the district clerk within ten days after an adverse vote of the district a written notice that the trustee’s account will he presented to the county judge, is a sufficient ground to dismiss the proceeding before the county judge.

Appeal from order of the county judge of Richmond county denying motion to vacate and set aside an order of said county judge charging the school district with the amount of petitioner’s account.

Petitioner was one of the trustees of school district No. 8 in the' town of Northfield in said county, and as such incurred expenses in defending a suit brought against him and in proceedings before the superintendent of public instruction for his reinstatement. He presented an account of such expenses to the district meeting held August 28, 1888; but the meeting refused to order the levy of a tax therefor. He then publicly gave notice of appeal to the *383county judge, and on September 20 served on the district clerk the written notice required by law.

No appearance being made on behalf of the district, the county judge allowed said account and charged the district with its amount. Thereafter this motion was made and denied.

*Lot G.*Alston, for app’lt; *T. W.*Fitzgerald, for resp’t

Barnard, P. J.

The school district had the right in the first instance to vote whether or not payment should be made to a school officer who" had conducted an action or proceeding without a resolution of the district meeting. 2 B. S., 7th ed., 1187. The defendant was a trustee who came within this provision and in compliance with the law presented his account in writing. The district meeting voted against taxing the district to pay it The defendant gave notice of appeal to the county court “ orally and publicly,” as the law required upon the refusal to vote in favor of the application. The law required the officer appealing to serve on the district clerk a notice in writing that the account would be presented to the county judge on a certain day specified therein. This notice must be served within ten days after the adverse vote of the district meeting. The papers state that this vote was taken August 28, 1888. The notice on the district clerk was not served until the 20th of September, 1888. This was too late. *Seymour*v. Judd, 2 N. Y., 464.

The failure to serve the notice on the clerk was sufficient ground to dismiss the proceedings. The order should therefore be reversed, with costs and disbursements.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.
# C_2007171EN.01001301.xml

| 24.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/98/07

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2007/C 171/10)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition: EPSO/AD/98/07 for certified auditors (AD9) of Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Romanian, Slovenian and Slovak citizenship.

EPSO/AD/98/07 for certified auditors (AD9)

The competition requires:

| i) | a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies attested by a diploma when the normal period of university education is four years or more,
  or |
| --- | --- |

i)

a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies attested by a diploma when the normal period of university education is four years or more,

or

| ii) | a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies attested by a diploma followed by at least one year's appropriate professional experience, when the normal period of university education is at least three years,
  or |
| --- | --- |

ii)

a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies attested by a diploma followed by at least one year's appropriate professional experience, when the normal period of university education is at least three years,

or

| iii) | professional training of an equivalent level. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

professional training of an equivalent level.

Candidates must have at least ten years' professional experience, including eight years relevant to the duties concerned and three years in management positions.

ten years'

eight years

three years

The competition notice is published in English, French and German only. The full text is in Official Journal C 171 A in these three languages.

Full details are available on the EPSO website at: http://europa.eu/epso

---
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HAEFEL COHN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Argued November 27, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

On error to the Supreme Court, in which court the following memorandum was filed by Chief Justice Gummere:

"The only question to be determined in this case is whether the crime of which the defendant was convicted had been outlawed prior to the finding of the indictment. For the reasons set forth in the opinion which was delivered by ns at the present term, in the case of State *v.*Morris Ruduer *(ante p.*20) we consider that it was. The judgment under review must therefore be reversed.

For the plaintiff in error, *A. Dayton Oliphant*and *Martin P. Devlin.*

For the defendant in error, *Harry Heher, Aaron V. Dawes*and *John A. Montgomery.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.