alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020378EN.01003902.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/39

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-565/20)

(2020/C 378/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, États-Unis)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 297/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
#### Donnie Wayne PARKER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44256.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 508.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
# C_2020414EN.01004001.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/40

---

Action brought on 25 September 2020 — MP v Commission

(Case T-588/20)

(2020/C 414/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 9 February 2020 impliedly rejecting her request that her pension rights be fixed under the rules in force prior to 1 January 2014, confirmed by the decision of 12 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 9 February 2020 impliedly rejecting her request that her pension rights be fixed under the rules in force prior to 1 January 2014, confirmed by the decision of 12 February 2020;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging the infringement, by the contested decision, of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---
H. Res. 469

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 29, 1994.

Resolved, That points of order against consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1995, and for other purposes, for failure to comply with

clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the

bill, all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XG330

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Ecosystem Committee will meet in Anchorage, AK, in July.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday July 24, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in the Chart Room, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.

*Council address:*                         North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda

### Tuesday, July 24, 2018

The meeting agenda includes: Review of the Draft Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

                    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at:                     *https://www.npfmc.org/​committees/​ecosystem-committee.*

## Public Comment

                    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Steve MacLean, Council staff:                     *steve.maclean@noaa.gov*                     or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. In-person oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the co-chairmen.                

## Special Accommodations

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

Dated: July 3, 2018.

Tracey L. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2018-14627 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00002-CR

EDDIBERTO LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 432nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1496518D)

February 20, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 GLADYS CORLISS, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 32,368 4 LARRY BOND, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 7 Albert Mitchell, District Judge 8 Gladys L. Corliss 9 Tucumcari, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11 Larry Bond 12 Tucumcari, NM 13 Pro Se Appellee 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 FRY, Judge. 16 Plaintiff-Appellant Gladys Corliss (Plaintiff) appeals from the district court’s 17 resolution of the underlying civil proceed ings. We issued a notice of proposed 18 summary disposition proposing to affirm in mo st respects, but to reverse as to the 192 scope of the order prohibiting Plaintiff fro m filing unsupervised pleadings. Plaintiff 1 has filed a memorandum in opposition. Af ter due consideration, we remain 2 unpersuaded. 3 We previously set forth our analysis relative to the merits of the various issues 4 suggested by the docketing statement. In the lengthy memorandum in opposition, we 5 understand Plaintiff to continue to raise the same assertions of error. However, we 6 discern nothing new in the memorandum in opposition in the way of persuasive 7 authority or argument. We therefore adhere to our prior assessment with respect to 8 all issues. 9 The only new matter raised in the memorandum in opposition involves 10 Plaintiff’s inclusion of one or more Court of Appeals judges within the scope of her 11 attacks on the integrity of all other judge s who have had any i nvolvement with this 12 case. To the extent that these unsupported assertions are suggested as any basis for 13 relief, we reject Plaintiff’s argument. 14 Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we reverse with respect to the 15 scope of the order prohibiting Plaintiff from future unsupervised filings in the district 16 courts of this State, and remand for appropriate modification. See State v. Ngo , 2001- 17 NMCA-041, ¶ 25, 130 N.M. 515, 27 P.3d 1002. In all other respects, the district court 18 is affirmed. 193 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8
# C_2022318EN.01001402.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21) v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

(Joined Cases C-213/21 and C-214/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Scope - Article 10(h) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Ambulance service classified as an emergency service - Voluntary organisations - Social cooperatives)

(2022/C 318/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21)

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Interveners: Regione Puglia (C-213/21), Confederazione Nazionale delle Misericordie d’Italia (C-213/21), Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze (Organizzazione nazionale di volontariato) — ANPAS ODV (C-213/21 and C-214/21), Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that emergency ambulance transport services may be awarded, by contract, on a preferential basis, only to voluntary organisations, and not to social cooperatives which can offer rebates associated with their activities to their members.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
#### JAMES SHUTE and wife *vs.*BENJAMIN GOULD, for the use of BAUDUY SIMMONS.

Any justice of the peace of the county may take and' certify- affidavits, to be used in, court as the foundation of a motion to the court.

*The Court,*on motion, struck off the use endorsed on a judgment by husband and wife-in favor of the assignee of the wife, though the bond was to the husband and wife; and the survivor. The bond- vests in the husband entirely during coverture.

Judgment in debt without writ.

*Mr. Patterson*

obtained a rule to show cause why the use-in this; ease should not be-struck out, founded on.an affidavit of James Shute;taken before Thomas McDowell, Esq.,.one of the. justices of the peace for New Castle county.

*Mr. Whitely*

objected to the affidavit,, that it was improperly taken; before any one other than the prothonotary; and if a justice of the peace could administer an. oath for such a purpose, that it did nob appear in this case that McDowell was a justice-of the peace, as he-did not take the affidavit in his official: capacity, or certify it under his official signature.

*Mr. Patterson*

replied, that the objection was too late. That a jus-

tice of the peace may administer an oath in any proper case an<J take and certify such an affidavit as this. That the evidence of *204the official capacity of Thomas McDowell is of record in the recorder’s office; and will be noticed by the court without proof.

*Patterson,*for the rule.

*Whitely,*contra.

*The Court*

overruled the objections to the affidavit except as to the official signature of the magistrate, which they allowed to be amended ; and, in the mean time, went on with the case.

It appeared on the evidence, that on the 18th of March, 1844, a bond was given by Benjamin Gould to James W. Shute and Elizabeth, his wife, or the survivor of them,.for $100. Shute and his wife separated, and she went off with an adulterer; and having clandestinely obtained possession of the bond, she sold it to Frederick Leonard, Esq., in July, 1844, and assigned it before one witness. Mr. Leonard assigned it in the same way to Bauduy Simmons, on the 8th of August, 1844; when the judgment was confessed at the suit of James Shute and wife for the use of Simmons.

On this state of facts the court made absolute the rule for striking out the use. The bond vests in the husband during his life. A married woman can have no right to personal property during coverture; it vests in the husband. *(Chitty on Cont.*176; *2 Harr. Rep.*41); *Ibid*74; 3 *Ibid*87.)

Rule absolute—use stricken out.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Magnetek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Reiland, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C.
Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ David P. ReilandDavid P. Reiland
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated
September 29, 2003

---

QuickLinks
3/12/2015 TDCJ Offender Details 

# 4^ OOO- O) Texas Department of Criminal Justice too Home 5jH NewOffender Search 

# Offender Information Details

Return to Search list
SID Number: TDCJ Number: Name: Race: Gender: DOB: Maximum Sentence Date: Current Facility: Projected Release Date: Parole Eligibility Date: Offender Visitation Eligible: 50113494 01977794 WIESEMEYER.RUSSELL W M 1987-07-16 NOT AVAILABLE EAST TEXAS TREATMENT FACILITY NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLEYESInformation provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

### on visitation days. Because this information is subjectto change, family members and 

### friends are encouraged to callthe unitpriorto travelingfor a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: 

### Scheduled Release Type:
Scheduled Release Location: Offense History: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. Will be determined when release date is scheduled. Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Sentence (YY-MM-DD)
http://offender.tdcj,state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=50113494 1/23/12/2015 TDCJ Offender Details Return to Search list



### The Texas Department ofCriminalJustice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is complete and accurate, howeverthis information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on 

### this site may not reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other information regarding an offender. 

### For questions and comments, you maycontactthe Texas DepartmentofCriminalJustice, at (936) 295-6371 or webadmin&.tdcj.texas.aov. This information is made available to the public and law enforcementin the interest ofpublic safety. Any unauthorized use ofthis information is forbidden and subject to criminalprosecution. New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj .state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=50113494 2/2
# C_2022165EN.01002301.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/23

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Leonardo SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale del Lazio

(Case C-550/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 165/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leonardo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale del Lazio

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Provincial Tax Court, Rome, Italy), by decision of 21 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 6.9.2021.

---
#### In re ESTATE of Myrtle R. LEE, Deceased. Henrietta CAREY, Appellant, v. Robert J. LEE, Appellee.

No. 77-1706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 5, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 31, 1978.

Michael A. Lipsky, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers and Kenneth R. Duboff, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Henrietta Carey, appeals an order dismissing with prejudice her petition for removal of personal representative.

Myrtle R. Lee died on November 29, 1976 and her husband, Robert J. Lee (respondent-appellee), as surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate upon filing a proper petition therefor. On March 21, 1977 Henrietta Carey, the deceased’s aunt, filed the instant petition requesting that Robert Lee be removed as personal representative because his marriage to the deceased was invalid in that he had been married on four occasions prior to marrying the deceased and did not legally divorce two of his past four wives. At the conclusion of petitioner’s case the court granted Robert Lee’s motion to dismiss and this appeal ensued.

One of the strongest presumptions of the law exists in favor of the validity of the last marriage. *Teel v. Nolen Brown Motors,*93 So.2d 874 (Fla.1957). The party attacking the legality of last marriage has the heavy burden of rebutting the presumption that such marriage is valid and all public records available should be exhausted in an effort to establish the fact of the absence of a divorce. See *Teel,*supra;*King v. Keller,*117 So.2d 726 (Fla.1960); *Jablonski v. Caputo,*297 So.2d 310 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).

After a review of the record, it is clear that petitioner-appellant failed to sustain her burden and in fact presented no documentary evidence nor proof of utilizing available public records.

Affirmed.
#### Louis James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-858.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 25, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Donations to Schools and Nonprofits

## Computers for Learning program

Computers for Learning is a government-wide program established by Executive Order 12999 whereby educationally useful excess federal equipment can be transferred directly to schools and educational nonprofit organizations. 

The Computers for Learning website is hosted by GSA to help facilitate the transfer of computer equipment between federal agencies and schools and educational nonprofit organizations.

## Eligibility

All Computers for Learning (CFL) participants must be located in the United States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

**Public, Private Schools and Day Care Centers**A school is eligible to receive donations through the Computers for Learning program if it is public, private, or parochial, serving pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students. Day care centers must provide a state-approved preschool curriculum.

**Educational Nonprofits**An educational nonprofit is eligible if it is classified as tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the United States tax code and serves pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students. In addition, education nonprofit organization must meet ALL of the following criteria to participate in the CFL program:
                        - Be tax exempt under section 501(C) of the U.S. tax code, AND
                        - Serve some portion of the pre-kindergarten through grade 12 population, AND
                        - Operate primarily for the purpose of education.

By completing the registration form, you are attesting that your educational nonprofit organization meets ALL of the eligibility requirements. Any federal agency that selects your educational nonprofit organization for donation will also ask you to provide proof of your eligibility. (Agencies determine what this should be, so it may vary.)

Not sure? Email computers.learning@gsa.gov for more information. 

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  For State agencies and public organizations-  Overview 
-  Donations to Schools and Nonprofits 
-  Eligible organizations and activities 
-  How to acquire surplus Federal Personal Property 
-  Information for SASPs and local GSA personnel 
-  Contact a State Agency