alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021490EN.01002301.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE

(Case C-594/21)

(2021/C 490/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB

Defendant: Sixt Leasing SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements with a term of 48 months that are concluded with a consumer constitute ‘car rental services’, and are they therefore covered by the exception from a right of withdrawal under the law on distance selling set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

  If Question 1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements with a term of 48 months that are concluded with a consumer constitute ‘car rental services’, and are they therefore covered by the exception from a right of withdrawal under the law on distance selling set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

---
# C_2022359EN.01007201.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/72

---

Order of the General Court of 25 July 2022 — Armadora Parleros v Commission

(Case T-254/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common fisheries policy - Failure by the Commission to exercise its powers of control covered by the applicable legislation - Engine power of boats - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Damage - Causal link - Limitation period - Action manifestly inadmissible)

(2022/C 359/89)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armadora Parleros, SL (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for damage caused to it by the loss of profit which it suffered as a result of an engine failure of its fishing vessel, the Vianto Tercero, in 2005. It attributes the origin of that engine failure to defective supervision by the Commission of the monitoring by the Kingdom of Spain of the rules of the common fisheries policy in the North-West Cantabrian sea fisheries zone. According to the applicant, the engine failure was caused by overuse of the engine due to the applicant’s exposure to unfair competition from fishing vessels with an engine power in excess of the permitted power.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Armadora Parleros SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Armadora Parleros SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
Filed 1/21/15 P. v. Acosta CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JOSE LUIS MADRIGAL ACOSTA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B256111 

(Super. Ct. No. 1433594) 

(Santa Barbara County) 

 Jose Luis Madrigal Acosta appeals the judgment entered after he pled no 

contest to battery causing injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)). After appellant pled no 

contest, he was referred to mental health treatment court and was accepted into its 

program. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on 

probation with various terms and conditions. 

 Because appellant pled no contest prior to a preliminary hearing, the 

relevant facts are derived from the probation report. Appellant allowed two homeless 

men to stay with him at his residence. When the owner or manager of the property told 

appellant the two men had to leave, appellant punched him in the face and head. The 

victim's injuries included a laceration above his right eye that required five stitches. 
2 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After 

examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that 

we independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 

 On September 19, 2014, we advised appellant in writing that he had 30 

days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished to raise on 

appeal. Appellant did not respond. 

 We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has 

fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P. J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
3 

Patricia L. Kelly, Judge 

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara 

______________________________ 

 California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and 

Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

The meeting will be held in the Auditorium, Room LL-002 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS:

                        This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at                         *http://www.sec.gov.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be the Commission's consideration of:

1. Whether to adopt an amendment to Securities Act Rule 701(e), as mandated by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

2. Whether to issue a concept release requesting comment on potential revisions to Securities Act Rule 701 and Securities Act Form S-8.

3. Whether to propose amendments to the disclosure requirements in Rule 3-10 and Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X.

4. Whether to adopt amendments to Rule 3a1-1 and Regulation ATS and new Form ATS-N under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to certain alternative trading systems.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 11, 2018.

Lynn M. Powalski,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15233 Filed 7-12-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2023015EN.01003902.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — CB v EUIPO — China Construction Bank (CCB)

(Case T-639/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCB - Earlier EU figurative mark CB - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CB - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: C. Gommers, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 1305/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
#### Mary L. HANEY, Appellant, v. Spencer A. HOLMES and Barbara J. Holmes, his wife, Appellees.

No. 78-43.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 26, 1978.

W. K. Zewadski and Radford W. Smith of Zewadski & Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Clark Stillwell of Tucker, Hicks, Blanchard, Brannen & Stillwell, P. A., Inverness, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Mary L. Haney, plaintiff below, seeks to appeal an order which states “the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be in [sic] the same is hereby granted.” This is not a final decision, order, judgment or decree within the contemplation of Flori*1189da Appellate Rule 3.2(b). Likewise, this case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity, so the order is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Fla. R.App.P. 4.2(a).

Therefore, we have no jurisdiction, and this appeal is hereby dismissed *sua sponte. Rizzuto v. DiPaolo,*357 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); *Arnold*v. *Brady,*178 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
#### Mickey WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-917.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Harold M. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 1973.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, and John A. Gentry, III, of Moyle, Gentry, Jones & Flanigan, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

ON PETITION FOR RE-HEARING

The timely filed petition for re-hearing is granted and this court’s decision filed January 19, 1973 affirming the judgment without opinion is withdrawn.

The supplemental record which we authorized to be filed in this cause discloses that at the sentencing proceedings held on February 24, 1972, the court inadvertently overlooked a condition of the plea bargain made at the time the guilty plea was entered on September 7, 1972.

As part of the plea bargain the State recommended to the court that there be a withholding of adjudication of guilt and that defendant be placed on probation. The trial judge stated that if the pre-sentence investigation should indicate that defendant was not a proper candidate for probation, the court would afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Subsequently, at the time of sentencing, the court announced that it found from the pre-sentence investigation that appellant was not a proper candidate for probation. However, through inadvertence (due most *308likely to the lapse of time) the court overlooked the agreement to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea at that time. On the authority of Barker v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 200, recently approved by us in Enos v. State, Fla. App.1973, 272 So.2d 847, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand this cause with directions that the appellant be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead anew.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the annual report of
Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry F. Vance, 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 to my
knowledge:





(1) This 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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and
results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/ Larry F. VanceLarry F.
    VanceChief Executive
      Officer
# C_2022463EN.01003101.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-429/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ALDIANO - Earlier EU word marks and earlier international word registration ALDI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cantina sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 1074/2020-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG;

| 3. | Orders Cantina sociale Tollo SCA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cantina sociale Tollo SCA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
#### R. B. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen O. Rushing, Asst. Public *1264Defender, Tampa, and William Murphy, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant R. B. Reynolds was charged with robbery. At trial, the court announced that it intended to instruct the jury on robbery and petit larceny. Defense counsel requested instructions on assault with intent to commit robbery and attempted robbery. The court denied this request and gave the instructions as announced. Thereafter, the jury found appellant guilty as charged.

Two days after trial the court held a sentencing hearing. Having pronounced sentence on the robbery, the court revoked appellant’s term of probation for another offense on the basis of the jury’s verdict in the robbery trial.

On this appeal, appellant questions the validity of both the conviction and the order revoking probation.

Attempted robbery and assault with intent to commit robbery were both lesser included offenses of robbery. *See Brown v. State,*206 So.2d 377 (Fla.1968). Since this was the case, the court should have instructed the jury on these crimes, and its failure to do so cannot be considered harmless. *Lomax v. State,*345 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977).

We must also reverse the revocation order. In *State v. Spratling,*336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976), the supreme court said, “In the absence of stipulation or consent, the trial of the criminal case should not be construed as a probation revocation hearing but can be treated as such upon stipulation or consent made before or after the trial.” *Spra-tling, supra*at 364. The record in the present case is devoid of a stipulation by appellant to the court substituting the criminal trial for a revocation hearing. Because of this, the trial court should have held a hearing on the issue of whether appellant’s probation was to be revoked. *See Hooks*v. *State,*207 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

We reverse appellant’s conviction on the charge of robbery and remand that case for a new trial. We also reverse the order revoking appellant’s probation and remand that case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
# C_2023015EN.01004101.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/41

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — PB v Commission

(Case T-407/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of amounts unduly paid - Enforceable decision - Application for interim measures - Urgency - Prima facie case - Balance of interests)

(2023/C 15/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] and, second, an order preventing the European Commission from recovering the amount indicated in that decision in any manner whatsoever, in particular by implementing the debit note, until the Court has ruled on the main action.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Application of Commission Decision C(2021) 3338 final of 5 May 2021 concerning the recovery of the amount of EUR 5 038 737,86 plus interest payable by the director of the company [confidential information redacted] is suspended.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---