alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016410EN.01003401.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/34

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-466/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/52)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
#### Michael Lynn BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6290.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Michael Lynn Brown, Appellant pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lynn Brown, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his petition for writ of mandamus as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and denying Brown relief.

The district court must give a prisoner notice and an opportunity to respond before construing a mislabeled or unlabeled post-conviction motion as an initial § 2254 petition. *Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. *542375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003); *United States v. Emmanuel,*288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir.2002). Here, Brown was not entitled to notice before the court construed his mandamus petition as a § 2254 petition because the instant action is not his first § 2254 petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
No. 46918.

#### Protests 7849-K, etc., of C. S. Allen Corp. (New York).

*461Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was agreed between counsel that the paper' involved herein is the kind that is used for wrapping candy, that a part of its surface is covered with metals or their solutions, and that the paper is also wax-coated, but not over the metal. The exhibit consisted of a yellow sheet of paper to which were attached 4 samples of colored paper showing the character of the merchandise here involved. The samples would seem to indicate that they have been entirely covered with wax on one or both surfaces, then partially covered with strips of metal leaf which have been superimposed thereon; in other words, the court stated, the basic paper has been wax coated and then partially covered with metal. On the record presented the protests were overruled. Abstract 38199 distinguished.
#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6761.

Entry No. 706767, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, July 8, 1941, etc.

Certified July 8, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 1, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law *304of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.”' The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 Ui S. C. § 1402 (c)), *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

A written stipulation of fact, submitting these cases, is sufficient to show that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d))r is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
No. 50653.

#### Protests 810958-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47291. Upon the established facts and following the authority cited the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
No. 39066.

#### Protests 877256-G, etc., of R. Roman & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
### Grapevine Training Center

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Docket Operations M-30, West Bldg Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington,DC 20590
SUBJECT REQUEST: ".- 0 

### l.r:;-:-, 1 ,,\**-~** '::'t t-
. ...._; .J

November 01, 2012

REQUEST FORRENEWAL OF FAAEXEMPTIONNUMBER9843B (AS AMENDED) REGULATORY DOCKET NUMBER: Faa-2008-0853, ALLOWING SINGLE PILOT OPERATIONS OF CESSNA CITATION AIRCRAFT. To Whom itmayconcern; PrestoSim Inc currentlyholds FAA exemption, number 9843B, Regulatory Docket number FAA 2008- 0853, from 14 cfr 91.531 (a)(1)(2); 91.9(a) allowing certificated pilots to conduct operations as a Single Pilot in Cessna Citation Aircraft. We are submitting this letter as written request to renew this itemized exemption for an additional two years, with the terms and conditions ofthe original petitionremaining the same. PrestoSim submits that the basis ofthe original decision to grant the exemption has continued intact. Further more there havebeen no change in the conditions and orreasons relative to public safety and interest. I would also liketo request a fax copy ofthe approval and then the original bemailed to ouroffice address.

# ~/~ Greg P Dawsey Training Center Manager

1000 Nolen Dr. Ste 400,Grapevine, Texas 76051. (800) 393-1075 I Fax (817) 488-4352
Before the Third Division,

December 15, 1944

No. 49870.

#### Petition 6325-R of Diamond Importing Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the testimony and the official papers it was found that there was ho intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2016279EN.01002701.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/27

---

Order of the General Court of 7 June 2016 — Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE)

(Case T-220/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark WE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 279/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2015 (Case R 1424/2014-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign WE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Beele Engineering BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Beele Engineering BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ALEXANDER GREYBULL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30073 

D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00020-SPW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Alexander Greybull appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions 

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

OCT 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30073 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a); possession of a firearm during a drug 

trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Greybull’s counsel has filed 

a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw 

as counsel of record. We have provided Greybull 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2016016EN.01003801.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/38

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania - Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient))

(2016/C 016/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici; Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA; Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl; Asstra — Associazione Trasporti and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici; Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA; Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl; Asstra — Associazione Trasporti and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00100-CV

__________________

IN RE VIKOR SCIENTIFIC, LLC

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 23-09-14105-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 15, 2024, Relator Vikor Scientific, LLC filed an agreed motion to 

dismiss this mandamus proceeding. Relator informs the Court that the parties have 

resolved the merits of their underlying dispute in a settlement agreement. We grant 

the motion and dismiss this original proceeding without reference to the merits.

PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 8, 2024

Opinion Delivered July 25, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Disturbance and forest healthin Oregon and Washington**
 
Part A | PartB | Part C | Part D | PartE | Part F | Part G
 
SuDoc:A 13.88:PNW-GTR-381
Item Number: 0083-B-06(online)
CGP systemNumber:000922222
 
November 30, 2017
**Exhibit 15.3**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-221808,333-165065,333-165566,333-169272,333-171231,333-172069,333-178664,333-188517,333-192806,333-201386 and333-208634) of Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA/NV of our report dated March 14, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,2015 of Ambev S.A. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV for the year ended December 31, 2017. The consolidated financial statements of the Companyare not separately presented in Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV’s annual report on Form 20-F.

March 19, 2018

/s/ DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU 

Auditores Independentes
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificateis furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 30,2016, by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC, as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersignedhereby certifies that:

 

1)          Iam a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.

 

2)          Areview of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Relevant Period”) andof the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)          Basedon such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Relevant Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed thisCompliance Certificate this 15th day of March, 2018.
# C_2016410EN.01002001.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/20

---

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission

(Case T-750/15) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - State aid - Renewable energy - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) - Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 410/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany) and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Hermann and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 concerning State aid scheme SA. 38632 (2014/N) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany (EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH, RWE Power AG and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH, RWE Power AG and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2017022EN.01002801.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background)

(Case T-578/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus and S. Stöcker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by E. Zaera Cuadrado, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2780/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
Case No. 8,619.

#### LYELL v. MAYNARD.

[6 McLean, 15.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1853.

Evidence — Copy op Patent bt County Recokdeb.

A certified copy of a patent, by the recorder of a county, is not evidence, as the law does not require the patent to be recorded in the county.

[Cited in Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 375.]

At law.

Davidson & Halbrook, for plaintiff.

Campbell, Hawkins & Morgan, for defendant.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an action of ejectment. To sustain the right of the plaintiff, a certified copy of the patent was offered for the land in controversy, which was objected to, as the law did not require patents emanating from the general government to be recorded. THE COURT held that the copy was not evidence certified by the recorder of a county, as there was no law requiring the patent to be recorded in the county, or declaring that such a copy *1137should be evidence. Patents are recorded in the general land office, and a certified copy from that office is evidence.
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6748.

Entry No. 709021.

Invoice dated London, England, July 18, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 4, 1945.

(Decided January 13, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*(J. *Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe,' Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsellor 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 the 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.