alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013215EN.01000603.xml

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-247/13)

2013/C 215/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rudolf Reznicek

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of Gries und Heissel Bankiers AG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

April 23, 1942

No. 47112.

#### Protest 16670-K of Linck & Alpert, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the laces in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 41121 the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) and T. D. 48316 was sustained.
Filed 2/22/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 39

Joseph Tarabochia, Appellant

v.

North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance, Appellee

No. 20170295

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Kirsten M. Sjue, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Joseph Tarabochia, self-represented, Skamokawa, WA, appellant; submitted on brief.

Brian Schmidt (argued) and Mitchell D. Armstrong (on brief), Special Assistant Attorneys General, Bismarck, ND, for appellee.

Tarabochia v. Workforce Safety & Insurance

No. 20170295

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Joseph Tarabochia appealed from a judgment affirming a decision of Workforce Safety and Insurance finding Tarabochia was not entitled to disability benefits for wage loss. Tarabochia argues the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding he was not justified in refusing a transitional job offer from his employer. A preponderance of the evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Tarabochia was not entitled to disability benefits because he voluntarily limited his income without justification. There was no objective medical evidence, even after his traumatic brain injury diagnosis, that Tarabochia was unable to return to work under the restrictions provided by his physician and accommodated by his employer. We summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-1976

_____________________________

DEAUNDRE BERNARD WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

September 20, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathleen Pafford, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary Lawton, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1937 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 

energy property credit to include the insulation component of insulated siding. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the nonbusiness energy property credit to include the 

insulation component of insulated siding. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY TO IN4 CLUDE INSULATION COMPONENT OF INSU5 LATED SIDING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 25C(c) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the 

9 period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘, 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1937 IS

1 and’’, and by adding at the end the following new subpara2 graph: 

3 ‘‘(E) insulation portion of any building 

4 cladding system that has a minimum thermal 

5 resistance of R–2 (including vinyl siding) and 

6 integral insulating material.’’. 

7 (b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Subsection (b) of section 

8 25C(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

9 by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by 

10 inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3) CERTAIN INSULATION.—In the case of 

12 amounts paid or incurred for components described 

13 in subsection (c)(2)(E) by any taxpayer for any tax14 able year, the credit allowed under this section with 

15 respect to such amounts for such year shall not ex16 ceed the excess (if any) of $250 over the aggregate 

17 credits allowed under this section with respect to 

18 such amounts for all prior taxable years ending after 

19 December 31, 2005.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2012227EN.01002701.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/27

---

Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Eduardo López Cabré (VOGUE)

(Case T-229/12)

2012/C 227/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 26 March 2012 (R 1170/2011-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 26 March 2012 (R 1170/2011-4);

| — | alternatively, to uphold the Opposition only so far as it relates to the following goods umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, to uphold the Opposition only so far as it relates to the following goods umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols; and

umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols

| — | to order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 4 023 041

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word mark ‘VOGUE’ and the national figurative mark ‘VOGUE moda en lluvia’ for goods in class 18

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00412

- CR

Robert MARTINEZ, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 186th J udicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR6698 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case “ is a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal

. ” It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk electronically file a clerk ’ s record, no later than June 27, 2014

, containing the following

documents:

1. All pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. The Court Admoni shments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant ’ s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

- judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court ’ s Certifi cation of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.The clerk of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter ’ s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2013114EN.01002901.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/29

---

Action brought on 27 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-100/13)

2013/C 114/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in so far as the German authorities use the construction products lists to demand additional approvals for effective market access and the use of construction products, instead of incorporating the required assessment methods and criteria within the framework of the harmonised European standards, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, (1) and, in particular, under Article 4(2) and Article 6(1) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in so far as the German authorities use the construction products lists to demand additional approvals for effective market access and the use of construction products, instead of incorporating the required assessment methods and criteria within the framework of the harmonised European standards, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, (1) and, in particular, under Article 4(2) and Article 6(1) thereof;

1

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 89/106/EEC. The use of construction products lists has the result that additional, prior approvals are demanded for effective market access and the use of construction products. Many cases do not concern possible requirements with regard to new characteristics. Rather, requirements which were already established before harmonisation, and which could have and should have been covered by incorporation of the required assessment methods and criteria within the harmonised framework, are adhered to.

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12.

1

---
FILED IN COURT 0= AP==A-S

12th Court o< Appeals District

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

FILE COPY

10/2/2015

WRIGHT, JEFFREY DOCK Tr. Ct. No. 241-1880-13

This is to serve notice to the court of appeals that this Court granted a motion for

extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review until September 7, 2015.

The time for filing the petition for discretionary review has expired.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

COANo. 12-14-00125-CR

PD-1007-15

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
No. 55599.

#### Air Clearance Ass’n., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 168838-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the entry was liquidated on July 6, 1950, and that the protest was filed on September 26, 1950. Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was held untimely, and the motion to dismiss was granted. (Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.)
Before the Third Division,

February 26, 1940

No. 43269.

#### Protest 852532-G of R. U. Delapenha & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the authority of *Stone*v. *United States*(19 C. C. P. A. 259, T. D. 45388) and *Oldetyme Distillers*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 487, C. D. 184) the whisky herein involved was held dutiable at $2.50 per proof gallon instead of $5 per gallon as assessed by the collector.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.b
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Theodore Misiewicz, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                     /S/ THEODORE MISIEWICZ
                                     ----------------------
Date: November 14, 2005              Theodore Misiewicz, Chief Financial Officer
No. 96-6138.

#### In re Javier Romero.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of J.J.G., L.K.G., H.A.G., and A.G.G., Children

Appellate case number: 01-16-00104-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-00610J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, J.R.G. a/k/a R.G., has filed a second unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file his brief, requesting an extension to May 3, 2016. We deny appellant’s motion. 

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed with this Court no later than April 25, 2016. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 28.4(a), 38.6(a), (d).

Because this appeal involves a child-protection case, the Court is required to bring the 

appeal to final disposition within 180 days of February 7, 2016, the date the first notice of appeal 

was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted 

in TEX. GOV’T. CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (Vernon 2013); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4.

Accordingly, no extensions will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 15, 2016
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

# FY20 Defense Civilian Emerging Leader program selections

By Dawn SuttonDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
Congratulations to the Fiscal Year 2020 Defense Civilian Emerging Leader selections:
                              -  Mary Fancil, Business Process Support, Sales Order Processing Branch
                              -  Eric Locklear, DLA Maritime Supplier Operations, Non-Powered Valves IST

These two Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime employees will embark on a six-month leadership journey with the DCELP Program in a combination of online and residence courses starting in March 2020.

The DCELP provides training to the next generation of Department of Defense leaders. DCELP fills a critical need by enabling the DoD to focus on entry level and emerging leader development for the civilian workforce.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Personal Development L&MResource the Enterprise L&M
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Rudman, the Chief Executive Officer of SmarTire Systems,  Inc. certify
that:

1.    I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-KSB of SmarTire  Systems,
      Inc.;

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

3.    Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other  financial
      information included in this annual 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  annual
      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 annual
            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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented  in  this  annual   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


October 29, 2004                                 /s/ Robert Rudman
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Robert Rudman, CEO