alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023278EN.01001901.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Polynt v ECHA

(Case T-207/21) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of substances - Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride - ECHA decision requesting one or more additional tests - Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Error of law)

(2023/C 278/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and I. Zonca, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: N. Herbatschek, T. Basmatzi and M. Goodacre, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision A-015-2019 of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 9 February 2021, by way of which the latter dismissed the appeal brought by Polynt SpA against the decision relating to a testing proposal submitted in the applicant’s registration dossier for the substance hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polynt SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polynt SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
#### Felix Cruz, Respondent, v Hungjoo Ha et al., Defendants, All American Trading Corp. et al., Respondents, and New Korea Industrial, Ltd., Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 359]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered May 8, 1996, which denied defendant New Korea Industrial’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that "[t]he conflicting affidavits by the respective experts raise questions of fact as to *160credibility and the weight to be afforded to their respective opinions as to the manufacturer of the nail”. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.
# C_2022138EN.01001201.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/12

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by AV, AW against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-43/20, AV and AW v Parliament

(Case C-773/21 P)

(2022/C 138/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: AV, AW (represented by: J. Martins, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims of the appellants put forward at first instance, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims of the appellants put forward at first instance, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Infringement of the rights of the defence and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rights of the defence and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons;

| — | Inaccurate assessments of the facts and distortion of a number of items of evidence which led the General Court to err in law in the assessment of the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Inaccurate assessments of the facts and distortion of a number of items of evidence which led the General Court to err in law in the assessment of the facts;

| — | Error of law in the interpretation of the applicable legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of law in the interpretation of the applicable legislation.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

I, Howard E. Ehler, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard E. Ehler, Chief Financial 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:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Howard E. EhlerHoward E. Ehler Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2007
# C_2022472EN.01003601.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Basaglia v Commission

(Case T-257/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Documents relating to research and technological development projects - Decision limiting the request for access and partially refusing access - Partial annulment by the General Court of that decision - Convictions by national courts - Unlawfulness of the conduct complained of - Causal link)

(2022/C 472/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, G. Borriello and F. Fimmanò, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, F. Moro and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the financial, non-material and reputational damage which he allegedly suffered as a result of the European Commission’s unlawful rejection of his requests for access to documents and its failure to comply with the judgment of 23 September 2020, Basaglia v Commission (T-727/19, not published, EU:T:2020:446).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Giorgio Basaglia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Giorgio Basaglia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
#### MALLOW HOTEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Andrew J. SARDONI et al., Trustees, etc.

No. 6379.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 15, 1937.

Frank P. Slattery, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for appellant.

James P. Harris and Neil Chrisman, both of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and Arthur Butler Graham, of New York City, for appellees.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

*1014PER CURIAM.

After argument and full' consideration had, this appeal is dismissed and the order of Judge Johnson, which reads as follows: “And now, January 28, 1937, the Receivers in Equity of the Mallow Hotel Corporation having occupied for a period of five years all of the premises leased by the Wilkes-Barre Hotel Company to the Mallow Hotel Corporation, and having by their conduct adopted the said leases, thereby becoming liable for the rent stipulated in the leases, it is ordered that the petition to dismiss the claim of the Wilkes-Barre Hotel Company, Debtor, for rent due under the leases up to the end of the Equity Receivership is dismissed, and the rule thereon is discharged,” is affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50821 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALMA ROSA SALAZAR-GONZALES, a/k/a Alma Rosa Mendoza,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CR-237

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

PER CURIAM:*

Salazar-Gonzales appeals her sentence after pleading guilty

to illegal reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She

argues that the district court misapplied the sentencing

guidelines by applying the 16-point upward adjustment of U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(2). She contends that her previous conviction for

burglary of a habitation should not be considered an aggravated

felony because she received a suspended sentence of probation. 
No. 95-50821

-2-

The district court did not misapply the sentencing guidelines. 

See United States v. Vasquez-Balandran, 76 F.3d 648 (5th Cir.

1996).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors of Newhall Management Corporation
and Partners of The Newhall Land and Farming Company:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers 033-53767, 033-53769, 033-58171 and
333-15303 and 333-57591) of The Newhall Land and Farming Company of our report dated January 16, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Newhall Land
and Farming Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in partners' capital, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of The Newhall Land and Farming
Company.

|                                       | /s/ KPMG LLP
|-------------------------------------- | ------------
|Los Angeles, California
March 27, 2001 |             

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DEON MARKEY GLISPY ,

Appellant , v. Case No s . 5D 21
- 2172 5D21
- 2173 LT Case No s
. 2020
- CF
- 022890
- A

2019
- CF
- 049435 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 3 , 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court f or Brev ard County, Dav id C. Koenig, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Dayto na Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Dayton a Beach, f or Appellee. PER CURIAM.2

Deon Markey Glispy appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following the violation and revocation of his c ommunity control

. W e review the trial court’s finding of a violation of community control for competent, substantial evidence. See Kegler v. State , 313 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 20 21 )

. Glispy had been placed on community control in connection with two criminal convictions , including the sale of cocaine . Sixteen days later, he was arrested for

— among other things

— selling cocaine. Competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’ s findings on these multiple new law violations. The trial court erred, however, when it concluded that Glispy had violated community control by failing to remain confined in his home. This condition had exceptions for work
- related travel, public service work, or special activities. The State did not elicit any competent, substantial evidence to support this violation

. The community control officer did not testify ; the State presented no evidence that Glispy’s absence from home had not been approved. B ecause it is clear the trial court was focused on Glispy’s drug
- related violations and not his failure to remain at home , a remand for resentencing is unnecessary. See Payet v. State , 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1705, D1705 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 12, 2022). W e therefore affirm the trial court’s revocation of3

Glispy’s community control but remand for it to strike its finding that G li spy violated condition sixteen of his community control

. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. EVANDER , EISNAUGLE and TRAVER , JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 576 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 576

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                          October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the management of 
portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
waived. Debate on the bill shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131076 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131076 

 COA: 264123 

Wayne CC: 01-003932 

CHRISTINE HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
# C_2022463EN.01002901.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)

(Case T-222/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU figurative mark Shoppi - Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit))

(2022/C 463/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shopify Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi (Fiano, Italy), Salvatore Vacante, (Berlin, Germany), Shoppi Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Roth and A. Hogertz, lawyers)

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 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shopify Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shopify Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
#### A. J. SCHANFARBER v. WEBSTER HALL CORPORATION OF AMERICA. A. J. SCHANFARBER v. Jas. P. DONOVAN.

No. 7657.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

A. J. Schanfarber, of Chicago, III, for appellant.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On petition of A. J. Schanfarber, appellant, and upon stipulation of counsel, it is ordered that the appeal of A. J. Schanfarber be, and the same is hereby, docketed and dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Gayle, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 581]

Appeal by the defendant from, a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 23, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

The defendant correctly contends that he was denied his right to a public trial *(see,*US Const 14th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; *People v Jones,*47 NY2d 409, *cert denied*444 US 946) because the Supreme Court excluded his girlfriend from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. When the defendant objected to her exclusion the People offered no evidence that she would be a threat to the officer, nor did the court make findings that the girlfriend would pose a threat to the officer *(see, People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54, 58-59; *People v Gutierez,*86 NY2d 817; *People v Pankey,*219 AD2d 737; *cf., People v Dorcas,*218 AD2d 813). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The trial court also erred by permitting the People to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior salé of drugs at the same location during the 21-month period preceeding the incident giving rise to the present charges, as relevant to the defendant’s identification because of the unique modus oper- and! involved in selling drugs at the same location. Such behavior was not sufficiently unique to warrant the introduction of these prior uncharged crimes *(see, People v Beam,*57 NY2d 241, 251; *People v Condon, 26*NY2d 139, 144). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21710]

[[Page 53959]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8007]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Pedimental Relief''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Pedimental Relief,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit object at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, New York, from on or about October 1, 2012, until on or about 
October 1, 2022, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 27, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-21710 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### SHARON PACKING COMPANY, a corporation, and Hollywood Packing Co., Inc., a corporation t/a Westland Meats, Petitioners, v. HOBART CORPORATION, a corporation, Respondent.

No. 77-1703.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Verne L. Freeland, Miami, for petitioners.

Frank Sinagra of Friedman & Britton, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM, BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENT OF CASH 
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10KSB, 
FOR DECEMBER 31, 1998. 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                       1,426,381 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  382,670 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,284 
<INVENTORY>                                    385,365 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,206,709 
<PP&E>                                         358,436 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,122 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,354,145 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,140 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                         4,954 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,237,034 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,354,145 
<SALES>                                      1,485,381 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,631,298 
<CGS>                                          692,632 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  759,053 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               204,941 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                242,779 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    79,852 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            162,927 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,927 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03 
         

</TABLE>