alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014071EN.01003301.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Roulet v Commission

(Joined Cases F-72/12 and F-10/13) (1)

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Article 66 of the Staff Regulations - Former member of the temporary staff at Grade AD12 - Recruitment as an official at Grade AD6 - Payment of remuneration equivalent to that paid to an official at Grade AD12 - Manifest error - Recovery of undue payments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

(2014/C 71/63)

Language of the cases: French

Parties

Applicant: Josiane Roulet (Ottignies, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of: (i) the decision rejecting a request for compensation made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations by reason of the errors made when establishing her entitlements when she took up her duties and for the delay in rectifying those errors; and (ii) the Commission’s decision relating to the recovery of a certain amount of the remuneration of the applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff at Grade A4 (AD12), and subsequently an official at Grade AD6, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-72/12 and F-10/13; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-72/12 and F-10/13;

| 2. | Orders Ms Roulet to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Roulet to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 29; OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 39.

---
Case No. 13,386.

#### STETTINIUS v. ORME.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 342.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1833.

Bail in Civil Case — Affidavit—Slander.

It is not a valid objection, to an affidavit to-hold to bail in slander, that the plaintiff therein states that he is credibly informed and verily believes that the defendant spoke the words; the affidavit being positive that the plaintiff had sustained damage thereby to the amount of $5,000.

[This was an action for slander, by Samuel Stettinius against W. C. Orme.] Affidavit filed with the declaration before the writ was issued.

Mr. Wallaeh moved for leave to appear without bail, because the affidavit was not positive that the defendant spoke the words charged.

But the affidavit was deemed sufficient by

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

although it only stated that the plaintiff was credibly informed and verily believed that the defendant spoke the words; the affidavit being positive that the plaintiff had sustained damage by the speaking of the words to the amount of $5,000.
Before the Second Division,

September 8, 1939

No. 42082.

#### Protest 77376-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel Normandy laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551), window curtains like those passed upon in *Billwiler*v. *United States*(T. D. 44911), silk veils similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Ramig*(17 C. C. P. A. 365, T. D. 43809), and filet articles similar to the merchandise covered by *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 id. 77, T. D. 47065) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
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

MIGUEL REYES-CARREON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden and

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF NEVADA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-16416

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00591-JCM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Miguel Reyes-Carreon appeals pro se from the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16416

Reyes-Carreon contends that the district court should not have dismissed his

petition as untimely filed because he relied on incorrect advice from an “assistant”

in his prison law library. This contention lacks merit. See Miranda v. Castro, 292

F.3d 1063, 1066-68 (9th Cir. 2002) (ruling that equitable tolling was not warranted

where a section 2254 petitioner relied on incorrect advice of former counsel

because petitioner had no right to assistance counsel regarding post-conviction

relief).

Reyes-Carreon’s other contention advanced, concerning his limited language

abilities, lacks merit. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“[A] non-English-speaking petitioner seeking equitable tolling must, at a

minimum, demonstrate that . . . he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure

either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate,

library personnel, or other source.”) (emphasis added).

Reyes-Carreon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

We construe Reyes-Carreon’s additional arguments as a motion to expand

the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.

22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam).

AFFIRMED.
3 09-16416
From: 

Sent: 

Russ Maguire <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:46 PM 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Follow Up Flag: 

Flag Status: 

FYI 

----- Forwarded Message-----

Brandon H. Moss 

Mark P. Ryan 

Fwd: Charges Against BEH 

Follow up 

Flagged 

From: "Kevin Grasso" <kgrasso@norwoodma.gov> 

To: "Russ Maguire" <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Cc: "Mark Raymond" <mraymond@norwoodnia.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 1:36:54 PM 

Subject: Airport 

Russ and Mark, 

I have confirmed that Christopher Donovan and Robert Silva have had criminal complaints filed at Dedham District 

Court. They are both being charged with Mass. General Law 266-127A Destruction of Property over $250. We are 

waiting for the Court to give us a hearing date. The Officer did a great job investigating this and filed a very good report. I 

will keep you posted on any dates. 

Kevin J Grasso 

Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police Norwood Police Department 

137 Nahatan Street 

Norwood, Ma 02062 

781-440-5151 

The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be 

protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended 

to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, 

please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, 

dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be 

unlawful. 

Russ Maguire, Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

1
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, Kathy Christopher, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of USIP.Com, Inc.;


2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;


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


4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:


a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;


b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):


a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and


6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May  9, 2005


                                        s/s Kathy Christopher
                                           Kathy Christopher, Controller
Case Wo. 8,703.

#### McCLOUD v. COLTMAN.

[Cited in Ten Broeck v. Pendleton, Case No. 13.S27. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
# C_2014395EN.01003601.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-132/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci and N. Ferretti, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 3. | Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---
# C_2015046EN.01004402.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-235/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for three-dimensional Community mark - Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle - Earlier national three-dimensional mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 75, Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 046/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, G. Rząsa and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2506/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok (Spółka Akcyjna) and Underberg AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2506/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2506/2010-4);

| 2) | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CEDC International sp. z o.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CEDC International sp. z o.o.;

| 3) | Orders Underberg AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Underberg AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0222 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 - SW - 007 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
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/ John L. Skibski
-------------------------------
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2004
Exhibit 10.4


 


Summary of Terms of Verbal Consulting Agreement with RPG LLC


 


	
  Parties:

  	
  Fairground
  Media LLC and RPG LLC.

  
	
  Scope:

  	
  RPG
  provided management and marketing support consulting services to Fairground
  Media.

  
	
  Compensation:

  	
  $50,000
  in the aggregate over the term of the agreement paid in three installments: 

  (a) $17,000 retainer; 

  (b) $17,000 upon completion of website’s visual design; and 

  (c) $16,000 upon achievement of marketing goals of 200 listings and 100
  transactions on the website.

  
	
  Term:

  	
  June 2007
  until completion in January 2007.
# C_2019295EN.01003101.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/31

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Bundesverband Glasindustrie and Others v Commission

(Case T-108/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 295/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Bundesverband Glasindustrie (Düsseldorf, Germany) and the other 11 applicants whose names are annexed to the order (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and of P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and of P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Bundesverband Glasindustrie and those of the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Bundesverband Glasindustrie and those of the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex.

| 4. | ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz shall bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz shall bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---