alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012295EN.01002001.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/20

---

Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-416/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-339/12 P)

2012/C 295/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Pi-Design AG, Bodum France, and Bodum Logistics A/S, (represented by: H. Pernez, Advocate)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Squash the judgment of the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

Squash the judgment of the General Court

| — | Annul the Community trademark 1 372 580 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Community trademark 1 372 580

Subsidiairily

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court with the obligation to refer the case back to the Board of Appeal in the case of annulment of the latter's decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court with the obligation to refer the case back to the Board of Appeal in the case of annulment of the latter's decision.

| — | Order YOSHIDA METAL INDUSTRY CO. LTD. to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order YOSHIDA METAL INDUSTRY CO. LTD. to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General court infringed Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community trade mark regulation by applying incorrect criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of the contested sign and by distorting the evidence before it.

---
February 21, 1942

No. 46979.

Suit 4366.

#### *United States*v. *Ricard-Brewster Oil Co.*

C. D. 488. C. A. D. 191.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Francis Mailhot, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MILLENNIUM CAPITAL
VENTURE HOLDINGS, INC.(the "Issuer");

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Issuer as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The Issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Issuer and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter ending December 31, 2003that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and

      5. The Issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the Issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Issuer's internal control
over financial reporting.

By:  /s/ Francis Mailhot
     ------------------------------
     Francis Mailhot
     President, Principal Financial Officer,
     Principal Accounting Officer,
     Chairman of the Board of Directors

Dated: March 16, 2005
*

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 26, 2007*

Decided September 27, 2007

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEPIZE Q. MONTGOMERY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 05 CR 134-1

James B. Moran,

Judge. 

O R D E R

Lepize Montgomery obtained a driver’s licence with his photograph but

another man’s name and used it on January 17, 2003, to cash a check for $593.63

made payable to the name on the license. This was just one of many checks

Montgomery cashed under false pretenses over several years, but the government

abandoned its prosecution of broader charges after Montgomery pleaded guilty to

one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) in connection with the check for

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-3023 Page 2

$593.63. The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and ordered

him to pay $593.63 in restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(B). The court also ordered him to pay $5,000 in

“discretionary” restitution for losses arising from other checks.

Montgomery does not dispute that he must repay $593 as restitution for his

conviction under § 1028(a)(7), which makes it a crime to use another person’s name

with the intent to commit a felony. But he argues that the district court had no

authority to order restitution beyond that amount. Montgomery contends, and the

government agrees, that on the facts of this case the court lacked authority to

impose the $5,000 award under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, see United

States v. Randle, 324 F.3d 550, 556 (7th Cir. 2003); or the Victim and Witness

Protection Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a); United States v. Menza, 137 F.3d 533, 537

(7th Cir. 1998); or as a condition of supervised release, see United States v. Frith,

461 F.3d 914, 919 (7th Cir. 2006). Montgomery did not raise this objection in the

district court, so our review is for plain error. See United States v. Alburay, 415

F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2005). But a district court commits plain error when it

imposes restitution without statutory authority, as the government concedes. See

Randle, 324 F.3d at 558. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the award of $5,000 in discretionary restitution

and REMAND for the district court to enter a corrected judgment.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG Nos. 8 & 64

September Term, 2018

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

v.

ARLENE ADASA SMITH-SCOTT

Barbera, C.J.

McDonald

Watts

Hotten

Getty

Booth

Biran,

 

JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: January 10, 2020

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CAE-18-23035

Case No. CAE-19-08617

Argued: January 10, 2020
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * IN THE

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS 

v. * OF MARYLAND 

ARLENE ADASA SMITH-SCOTT * Misc. Docket AG Nos. 8 & 64

September Term, 2018

 

PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 10th day of January

2020,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Arlene 

Adasa Smith-Scott be, and she is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the 

further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Arlene Adasa 

Smith-Scott from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-761, shall 

certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial 

tribunals in the State; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, 

including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-709, for which sum 

judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against 

Arlene Adasa Smith-Scott.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -- OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes -- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (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 Company.

/s/  Ho-Shang Lee
---------------------------------------
Ho-Shang Lee
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 5, 2002

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
33748.

#### HALL v. HALL.

Submitted June 16, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978.

Hall, Justice.

Mr. Hall appeals from an order of the Bartow County Superior Court finding him in wilful contempt for failure to pay alimony. The- amounts unpaid were primarily mortgage payments and taxes on the home occupied by his former wife and their children.

On this appeal, Mr. Hall urges that the trial judge should have recused himself under Canon 3C (1) (b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, because this matter was one in which his former law partner had served as counsel for Mrs. Hall during their association. Mr. Hall also disputes the wilfulness of his failure to pay, arguing that he was without funds to do so and thus was protected by Code § 24-105 (1) from imprisonment for contempt.

1. The trial judge did not err in refusing to recuse himself. Mr. Hall’s evidence did not show that Mrs. Hall’s representation by the judge’s former partner began before the judge left the association for the bench, and the ground for disqualification was therefore not proved.

2. The evidence failed to show any effort on Mr. Hall’s part to pay the mortgage and tax amounts falling due subsequent to a former contempt action on which he was jailed, despite the fact that since that time his financial circumstances had somewhat improved. Also, Mr. Hall’s evidence showed only his salary and the financial demands thereon, and failed to show the absence of other assets or savings from which the amounts owed might have been obtained. His evidence also failed to show any attempt to supplement his income to meet the obligations he voluntarily undertook to his former wife in the agreement upon which the alimony award was based.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*16
      *James A. Satcher, Jr.,*for appellant.

*William T. Elsey,*for appellee.
# C_2012227EN.01001201.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

(Case C-226/12)

2012/C 227/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constructora Principado, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the case of a contractual term which passes on to the consumer payment of an amount which by law is payable by the seller or supplier, is the imbalance referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as arising merely from the act of passing on to the consumer an obligation to pay which by law falls on the seller or supplier, or does the fact that the Directive requires the imbalance to be significant mean that, in addition, the financial burden on the consumer must be significant in relation to the total amount of the transaction?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

1

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
No. 96-1269.

#### Gaither *v.*Reno, Attorney General.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Aerial port: working together to move the mission

By Staff Sgt. Joshua King386th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

                SOUTHWEST ASIA   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Air Forces Central Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadroncargopackagingtransportationpallets
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>






                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Amended  Quarterly Report of Infinity Capital Group, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending  September 30, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report")  I,  Gregory H.  Laborde,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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
Company.

Dated: September 20, 2006


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 56737.

protests 182070-K, etc. (New York).

#### Altray Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found; not landed, not *500found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty .is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found; manifested, not found. The protests-were sustained to this extent.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DUSHUN DEVON ROBINSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2541

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 30, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Strickland v. State, 437 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1983); State v. 

Richards, 639 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Gray, 633 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 1994); Minor v. State, 707 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). 

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
---------------------------------_.._.__.. 

# 8 HINO MOTORS MANUFACTURING 

### U.S.A., INC.

March 12,2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: OnbehalfofHino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDeltaAir Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda, Japan. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located inMichigan and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth ofourbusiness ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Ourbusiness travelers look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTWto make 

### it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition of Haneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit ourbusiness travelers. Thank you for consideration ofthis request. 

### Yours truly

Senior Vice President

37777 Interchange Dr. Farmington Hills, MI48335 Tel: (248) 442-9077 Fax: (248) 442-9068
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 7, 2017

s0531 

# Order

Clerk June 7, 2017

153155

- 6

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153155

COA: 319993

Oakland CC: 2013

- 245247

- FH

DERRICK SHOMARI HOLOMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153156

COA: 319994

Oakland CC: 2013

- 245261

- FH

VERTRECE LEO SHEPARD WELLS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2015

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# HTTP Status 404 - /pubs/docs/GL-201809Spring_Final.pdf

type Status report

message /pubs/docs/GL-201809Spring_Final.pdf

description The requested resource (/pubs/docs/GL-201809Spring_Final.pdf) is not available.

### Apache Tomcat/6.0.16