alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022237EN.01005501.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/55

---

Order of the General Court of 29 March 2022 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)

(Case T-798/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, 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: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2021 (Case R 1645/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
#### Mrs. Helen PITCHER et al. v. IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 53887.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Mrs. Helen Pitcher and Manson Pitcher applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 280 So.2d 603.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### The WEBSTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES of America.

No. 6145.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 16, 1937.

Michael L. Igoe, of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellee, and upon consideration of the certificate of the clerk of the United States District Court filed this day, it is ordered and adjudged that this cause be docketed in this court and that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
# C_2022002EN.01003901.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/39

---

Order of the General Court of 29 October 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — Sartorius Werkzeuge (SATA)

(Case T-430/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 2/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apex Brands, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, M. Hartmann and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sartorius Werkzeuge GmbH & Co. KG (Ratingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2021 (Case R 2322/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sartorius Werkzeuge and Apex Brands.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Apex Brands, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Apex Brands, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
Exhibit
      23.1








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
      33-60591, 333-95113, 333-99865,
      333-105705, and 333-115964 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 27, 2007,
      relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
      schedules of Sierra Health Services, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report
      expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related
      to the adoption, on January 1, 2006, of Statement of Financial Accounting
      Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based
      Payment* ,
      and on
      December 31, 2006, of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’
      Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
      Plans* )
      and
      management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health
      Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.




/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Las
      Vegas, Nevada


February
      27, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. AKHIR MUHAIMIN WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50034 D.C. No. 2:01

- cr - 00297

- ABC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 26, 2016 ** Before: McKEOWN , WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Akhir Muhaimin Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 50

- month term of supervised release and two special conditions imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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). 

# FILED

APR 29 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 50034

Williams argues that the district court procedurally erred in imposing the 50

- month term of supervised release and th at the term is unreasonable. We disagree

. The record reflects that the district court considered Williams’ s arguments and adequately explained its determination that a 50

- month term of supervised release
was necessary. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992

- 93 ( 9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover , the record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors, including Williams’ s repeated failure to comply with the
terms of release and the need to protect the public

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Finally , t he term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Williams next challenges the special condition s of su pervised release requiring him to (1) participate in mental health treatment , as directed by probation, and (2 ) submit to warrantless searches upon reasonable suspicion of
unlawful conduct. Contrary to Williams’s arguments, t he district court’s reasons for imposing each of these conditions are apparent from the record

. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008 )

. Moreover, because the
conditions are reasonably related to deterrence and the protection of the public , and3 15

- 50034

do not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary , the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing them

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) ; Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924. Lastly , the warrantless search condition does

not violate Williams’s Fourth Amendment rights

. S ee United States v. Dupas , 419 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2005)

. We do not consider issues or arguments not raised and argued in the opening
brief . See United States v. Mejia

- Pimental , 477 F.3d 1100, 11 05 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert JONES and Lloyd Stewart.

No. 60674.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Alan James Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Atty., Indigent Defender Board, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Di-

*1354rector, Research and Appeals Division, Me-tairie, for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022472EN.01003802.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-467/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Lío - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 472/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: N. Lamsters and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2021 (Case R 1220/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DBM Videovertrieb GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DBM Videovertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
PO, XaJ TH£ c&uzr &F cfrmxPAu 

# IXVig


# m i7/£ 6TATE- OF T&xft5> 

## RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRHWINAt APPEALS 

## GO TtrrTT&P F&Z pEisx£?d F^p/n FILEDINI 77/e TTfT^b CeupT ®r- A?P£/K-2> C0URTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## TBnte, AulST^P, t&**2 m 182015 K)0. G3-13 -007&0 -CK AbelAcosta, Clerk T£A*C5 £0b*f(y £>£&>££ Su±>ixcF3> Pu &*&#?, ~PFin~d?F/ZT&P, flfj)> -frpuZt/f/db &fF&r«.F$> ~ - GTrJx&P 5Y ~Su£TxzE Pk/?YF*/Zp£0 5£ menxe>P> to ?F£yki?c A L&PGF?-
Cev*£5 u>ocJ ^A^> fp^ePt^>p/ *pFTTTT0iJ£i2- -jzP THE $(b&\/£ - £*£?CZ5e ^Tt> \&SCZ£7X0P Tt? ~P£&KXF TtlF L&P<kTt1r &F Ttfr£ 

### ?£T£TTeP> Tt> SO Ttet£*,Ah>t> xj z>u7Fs>?r- <dF THx*, memr&P TP TP£ TPr&F£$7^ oF ^SUZTZ^E To rFFi/g/JF THE ME&£/tifcT#<£r&. Tk&&oF t^feJ THFl 

## (h.
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
        - News Releases

#  News Releases 

**Collected by:** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2013

**Description:**
This collection includes HHS news and announcements from 1991+.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Science & Health

**Creator:**    	    OS/ASPA

## Narrow Your Results

**Creator**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) (1)

**Categories**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - Fraud (1)

**Group**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS News Releases (1)

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear
            - Date :  2016           X        
            - Date :  2016           X        
            - HHS_Official :  Andrea Palm, Mary K. Wakefield, Susannah Fox           X        

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### 	  Title:       The Secretary's Ventures Program Announces Projects for 2016    	  

### URL:     https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/03/09/secretary-ventures-program-announces-projects-2016.html

**Description:**	  	The Acting Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mary Wakefield today announced the selection of five entrepreneurial projects for investment by the Secretary's Ventures program (HHS Ventures).	  

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

**Creator:**    	    HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA)

**Date:**        	2016        

**Group:**    	    HHS News Releases

**Categories:**    	    Fraud

**HHS Official:**        	Andrea Palm, Mary K. Wakefield, Susannah Fox        

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1205

AN ACT

To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990

minimis processors, and for other purposes.to define fluid milk processors to exclude de
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1205

AN ACT

To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define

fluid milk processors to exclude de minimis processors,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fluid Milk Promotion

5 Amendments Act of 1993’’.
2

S 1205 ES

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.

2 (a) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—Paragraph (4) of sec3 tion 1999C of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7

4 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(4) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—The term ‘fluid

6 milk processor’ means any person who processes and

7 markets commercially more than 500,000 pounds of

8 fluid milk products in consumer-type packages per

9 month.’’.

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1999J(e)

11 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 6409(e)) is amended by inserting

12 after ‘‘4504(g))’’ the following: ‘‘, and that are fluid milk

13 processors,’’.

Passed the Senate July 1 (legislative day, June 30),

1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Michel de Rosen, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



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 consolidated 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel de Rosen                                                      
|Michel de Rosen                                                          
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors



August 3, 2005
#### SHIELDS *v.*STATE

[No. 338,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided June 18, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, LIorney and SybeRT, JJ.

*Albert A. Levin*for the appellant.

*Thomas W. Jamison, III, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *Dene L. Lusby, Assistant State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Lloward D. Shields, was convicted by the Criminal Court of Baltimore (sitting without a jury) on two *154counts of violation of the narcotics law, charging him respectively with possession and control of heroin. On this appeal, he argues that unconstitutionally seized evidence was erroneously admitted in evidence and that the convictions were not supported by the evidence.

Two policemen testified that Shields, a suspected narcotics user, was encountered by them and a third officer on Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore City on October 20, 1961, and that he then consented to a search of his person, which produced two capsules containing a residue of heroin. Although Shields testified that the three officers pushed him against a wall, forcibly subjected him to a search, and then arrested him when they found the two capsules, his testimony was not believed by the trial judge and that of the testifying policemen was. Under these circumstances, the determination as to whether the search was permissive was for the trial court, and unless we find it to have been clearly erroneous, which we do not, we may not substitute our judgment for his. *Knuckles v. State, 228*Md. 318, 319-320. “It has been held many times by this Court that a person cannot complain of a search and seizure to which he freely and voluntarily consents.” *Lyles v. State,*203 Md. 605, 610.

Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we think the facts that the two capsules (which on chemical analysis were found to contain a residue of heroin) were found on Shields’ person, and that his own testimony was that he was a sporadic user and had indeed used narcotics the day before his arrest (a virtual confession), taken together adequately supported the trial judge’s finding that the appellant had violated the narcotics law.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2021289EN.01002001.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/20

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-92/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - Suspensive effect of the remedy - Article 29 - Modalities and time limits for transfers - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 18 - National measure allocating to an applicant in respect of whom a transfer decision has been made a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing to be transferred)

(2021/C 289/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VW

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the order

Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from adopting, in relation to an applicant who has brought an appeal against a decision to transfer him to another Member State as referred to in Article 26(1) of that regulation, measures preparatory to such a transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing for their transfer.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
H. Res. 92

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 18, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are

hereby, elected to the following standing committees:

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Alan

Wheat, Missouri; Jim McDermott, Washington; Eleanor

Holmes Norton, District of Columbia; Sander M. Levin,

Michigan; John Lewis, Georgia; and William J. Jefferson,

Louisiana.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS: John M.

Spratt, Jr., South Carolina, to rank following Edolphus

Towns, New York.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### MIAMI SERVICE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. KNIGHT CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 425-3.

Division Three.

April 25, 1972.]

#### Marie E. Reid, *Respondent,*v. Mountain Vista Nursing Home, *Appellant.*