alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017144EN.01003801.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

(Case T-495/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN - Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain) (represented by: F. Perez Arnau, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 871/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus and Spanish Oranges

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
Case No. 9,948.

#### MURPHY v. CAMAC.

[4 Wash. C. C. 307.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Judgment — Sounding in Foreign Money — Rate of Exchange.

Judgment confessed, with liberty to the defendant at a future term to prove discounts. The judgment being for sterling money, the exchange is to be settled as of the day when the judgment was confessed.

1

**[Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

Judgment was confessed in this case for $1100, Irish sterling, at the November term 1S20 [see Case No. 2,226], with liberty to prove any discounts at a future session of the court. The plaintiff now admitted that the defendant was entitled to a credit against the judgment to the amount of 8-, and the only question submitted to the court was, whether the rate of exchange should be settled as of the day when the judgment- was confessed, or as of the present time. The court decided, that the rate of exchange when the judgment was confessed ought to govern.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6038** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. GARY RAY DEBOLT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00024

- FPS

- JES

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00109

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Be fore SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Gary Ray DeBolt, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gary Ray DeBolt seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not ap pealable 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. McDa niel , 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 motio n 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 DeBolt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability an d dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016156EN.01004201.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks)

(Case T-363/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/55)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1690/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a game chest containing wooden blocks as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 1 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 2 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 3 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 4 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 5 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 6 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 7 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 8 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 9 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 10 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 11 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 12 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 13 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 14 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 15 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 16 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 17 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 18 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 19 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 20 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 21 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 22 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 23 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 24 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/26/14 Page: 25 of 25  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:51:38-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### F. C. Gerlach & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6742.

Entry No. 739188, etc.

Invoices dated Leeds, England, January 1, 1942, etc.

Certified January 2, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 19, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 10, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison', Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On 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 *287the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016048EN.01000901.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag

(Case C-541/15)

(2016/C 048/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mircea Florian Freitag

Applicant:

Other parties: Angela Freitag, Vica Pavel, Stadt Wuppertal, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Wuppertal

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if that person is at the same time a national of another Member State and has, in that other Member State, by means of a change of name not associated with a change in family-law status, (re-) acquired his original family name received at the time of birth, even though the acquisition of that name did not take place during the habitual residence of that national in that other Member State and was carried out at his own request?

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BYRON H. DIXON, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 625, 44 CMR 55

No. 24,138

June 22, 1971

*Lieutenant David G. Grimes, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keener,*USMC, and *Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Charged with one specification alleging unpremeditated murder,1 the accused was found guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, resulting from culpable negligence, and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence of the court-martial. The Court of Military Review, while affirming “the findings and sentence approved on review below,” incorrectly noted, in the opening paragraph of its opinion, that the accused had been convicted of *voluntary manslaughter.*The error stands in need of correction.

While it might be contended that the opening statement in the court’s opinion was a typographical error, we cannot say, under these circumstances, that the accused was not prejudiced as to sentence, especially in light of the fact that the maximum imposable confinement for voluntary manslaughter is ten years and that for involuntary manslaughter is three years. United States v Lopes, 20 USCMA 495, 43 CMR 335 (1971); United States v Hamilton, 20 USCMA 519, 43 CMR 359 (1971). A new review as to sentence is required.

The decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The Court of Military Review should correct the error noted above and conduct a new review as to sentence.

1

 Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 918.
# C_2016279EN.01004002.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/40

---

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — SLE Schuh v EUIPO — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon (VIOS)

(Case T-191/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 279/56)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 73 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 73

            Honoring the life of Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2005

Mr. Biden submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             March 11, 2005

            Committee discharged; considered and agreed to.

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Honoring the life of Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena.

Whereas Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement 
        Administration for 11 years, was abducted and brutally murdered by drug 
        barons in 1985;
Whereas Enrique Camarena dedicated his life to serving the law enforcement 
        community and the Nation as a whole and was the devoted husband of 
        Geneva Alvarado and loving father of Enrique, Daniel, and Eric;
Whereas Enrique Camarena received 2 Sustained Superior Performance Awards and a 
        Special Achievement Award while serving the Drug Enforcement 
        Administration;
Whereas Enrique Camarena's dedication to reducing the scourge of drugs 
        eventually cost him his life;
Whereas ``Camarena Clubs'' to combat drug abuse have been created in high 
        schools across the Nation to honor his memory;
Whereas Enrique Camarena is honored each year during National Red Ribbon Week; 
        and
Whereas the 20th Anniversary of Enrique Camarena's death will be specially 
        honored on March 9, 2005, at the Drug Enforcement Administration 
        headquarters: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) mourns the loss of Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena;
            (2) recognizes the contributions of Enrique Camarena to our 
        National efforts to combat drug abuse;
            (3) admires the courage and dedication of Enrique Camarena 
        in his work as a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement 
        Administration;
            (4) expresses gratitude for the legacy left by Enrique 
        Camarena; and
            (5) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an 
        enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of Enrique 
        Camarena.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015414EN.01002202.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

(Case C-525/15)

(2015/C 414/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Álava

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laboral Kutxa

Applicant:

Defendant: Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the limitation of the consequences of holding a term to be ineffective because unfair, restricting the effects of restitution of sums paid but not due, by applying it from a particular date instead of from the moment the unfair, void term was first applied, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.

1

---
No. 62080.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 314597-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar *603in ail material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2015363EN.01001902.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15)

(2015/C 363/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

The second sentence of Paragraph 15(1) of the German Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax) provides that the intra-Community supply, importation or acquisition of goods which a commercial operator uses in the amount of less than 10 % for the purposes of his business does not count as being carried out for the purposes of his business — and to that extent excludes the right to deduct input tax.

That rule is based on Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC (1) of 19 November 2004, which authorises the Federal Republic of Germany, by way of derogation from Article 17(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to exclude expenditure on goods and services from the right to deduct VAT when the goods and services in question are used more than 90 % for the private purposes of a taxable person or of his employees, or, more generally, for non-business purposes.

1

Does this authorisation — in accordance with its wording — apply only to the cases covered by Article 6(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Article 26 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax), or does it apply, in addition, to all cases in which goods or services are used only partly for business purposes?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 357, p. 33.

1

---
HH,(jTl-0~>

Robert Allen Hamilton ] June 8, 2015

TDCJ-ID NO. 480977 i

Carole S. Young Medical Facility !

5509 Attwater Avenue j

Dickinson, Texas 77539 {:;.

CAUSE NUMBER 50383 - SID NUMBER 03096324

Dear Clerk:

My attorney filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals

on a actual innocence ...claim, but I do not have the white card where it was

denied. Could you please send me a white card or the date it was denied.

I need this information.

I wish to thank you for your time in this matter. I will be looking for

you response. If there is any charge please let me know.

Robert Alien Hamilton, Pro se

TDCJ-ID NO. 480977

Carole S. Young Medical Facility

Ar.twatsr ?Vvenue5509 Attwater Avenue

Dickinson, Texas 77539

1 of 1.

JW 112015

A^Aco$ta,Glerk
Case No. 9,947b.

#### MURPHY v. BYRD.

[Hempst. 221.] 1

Superior Court. Territory of Arkansas.

Jan., 1833.

Pleading at Law — Payment—Surplusage— Plea of Fraud.

1. A plea of payment referring to the instrument sued on, as a “supposed writing obligator}'.” is nevertheless good, and those words may be rejected as surplusage.

2. General plea of fraud is not admissible.

, Appeal from Conway circuit court.

[This was a proceeding by Benjamin Murphy against Richard C. Byrd.]

Before ESKRIDGE, CROSS, and CLAYTON, JJ. _ •

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This case comes up by appeal from Conway circuit court. It is contended that the court below improperly sustained the demurrer to the defendant’s two pleas of payment and fraud. The action is founded on a writing obligatory due the 11th of March, 1832, for the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars and twenty-two cents. By the defendant’s plea it is alleged that “on the 11th day of March, 1832, in the county aforesaid, he paid to said plaintiff the said sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars and twenty-two cents, according to the form and effect of said supposed writing obligatory.” It is said that this plea is repugnant and inconsistent with itself, because it admits the writing by necessary implication, and afterwards denies it by referring to it as having only a hypothetical existence, and consequently the demurrer was properly sustained. Repugnancy will, in many instances, vitiate a plea, but not when the matter is nonsense, by being contradictory and repugnant to something precedent. In such cases the inconsistent matter will be rejected as surplusage. 1 Chit. 211; 1 Salk. 324. In the case before us, the allegation of payment in the plea, is a clear admission of the instrument upon which the action is founded, and the statement after-wards allowing it a supposed existence only, is contradictory and should be rejected as surplusage. It certainly could not be taken advantage of on a general demurrer, and special demurrers are not allowed under the provision of our statute. We think, therefore, that the circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the plea of payment. A general plea of fraud has heretofore been decided by this court to be inadmissible, and clearly is so. Judgment reversed.

[For another action between the same parties, see Case No. 9,947a.]