alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021182EN.01005502.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/55

---

Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 12 March 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission

(Case T-45/21 R)

(Interim relief - Public procurement - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility - Lack of urgency)

(2021/C 182/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ciano Trading & Services CT & S SpA (Fiuminco, Italy), Silvia Brizio (Venaria Reale, Italy), Laurence André (Grivegnée, Belgium), Lidia Pacitti (Neder-over-Heembeek, Belgium) (represented by: D. Gillet and S. Van Beisen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Van Noyen and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, in particular and in essence, the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Commission of 20 November 2020 cancelling the call for tenders OIB/2019/CPN/0039 for a contract to be concluded for the management/operation of a service concession for sustainable group catering, including banqueting services, beverages for meetings and meals for children.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for temporary interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for temporary interim relief is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez, 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, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 27, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date: July 13, 2011



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    PEDRO (PETE) P.
RODRIGUEZ               
|Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez                      
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation, and The Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals For the City of Riviera Beach, Florida, Appellants, v. MONMOUTH LUMBER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

John H. Evans, of Herring & Evans, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Wallis E. Schulle, of Fisher, Prior, Pruitt & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.

WALDEN, J.

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. The property owner was not entitled to a variance relieving it of the necessity for providing off-street parking, either as a matter of fact or law.

The only basis for such variance is the economic advantage which would accrue to the property owner and this is not sufficient. Dade County v. Frank N’ Bun Operating Co., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 875; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 448; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 306. As a selfish practical matter, probably each individual property owner would like to be relieved of providing off-street parking and leave the parking problem to his neighbors and the city.

Here, the requirement was in existence when the owner purchased the property and hence the problem, if that’s what it is, was self-imposed and there has been no legal waiver as to it. Such circumstance bars the owner from variance relief. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 784; Elwyn v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 849; Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 232; and Friedland v. City of Hollywood, supra.

Under these circumstances, Government, and particularly here the Zoning Board of Adjustment, should be supported in its effort to relieve the problems and stresses brought about by urbanization and increased vehicular traffic and not just overruled piecemeal because it would help a given owner out of a dilemma which he knowingly created.

I would reverse the judgment and thereby affirm the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in its effort to uphold its zoning restrictions and require the property owner to provide off-street parking for three cars.
# C_2022257EN.01003101.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES)

(Case T-4/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ADI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Remittal of the case to the Opposition Division - Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(3)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 257/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. (Mars Hill, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: D. Piróg and A. Rytel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Adi Srl (Thiene, Italy) (represented by B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2020 (Case R 2713/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Adi and Advanced Superabrasives.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTONIO SANC HEZ OC H OA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ED W . C AM PB ELL, Dire c t or of Ya kim a C ounty De pa rtm e nt of C orre c t ions; SC OTT HIM ES, C hie f of the Yakim a C ounty De pa rtm e nt of C orre c t ions; YAKIM A C OUNTY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-35679

D.C . No. 1:17-c v-03124-SM J
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 9, 2018 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FREUDENTHAL, ** C hie f Distric t

Judge
. 

# FIL ED
MAR 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Na nc y Fre ude n tha l, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of W

y om ing, sitting by

de signa tion.De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts Ed W . C am

p be l l, Sc ott Him e s, a

nd Ya kim a C ounty (c olle c tive ly , the C ounty ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Pla intiffAppe l le e Antonio Sa

n c he z O c hoa ’ s (Sanc he z Oc hoa ) re que s t for a te m pora ry
re stra i ning orde r (TR O). The TR O re quire d tha t the C ounty : re m ove a

nota tion from its online ja il roste r indic ating tha

t Sa nc he z Oc hoa

wa s be ing de ta ine d pursua nt to a n im m igration hold; phy sic a lly re l e a se San c h e z Oc hoa should hepost bond on his sta

te c ha rge s; a nd re fra in from

re l y i ng on a

n a d m inistra t ive wa rrant to hold or othe rwise c om

m unic ate to third pa

rtie s tha t Sa nc he z Oc hoa

wa s be ing he ld due to his im

m igration sta

tus. R e vie wing subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion d e nov o , inc l uding que stions of mootne ss, we dism iss the c a se a s m o ot a n d va c ate the TR O. Se e Diaz v . First Am. Home Buy e rs Prot. C orp. , 732 F.3d 948, 951 (9th C i r. 2013) (c ita tion omitte d). Following the

distric t c ourt’ s e ntry

of the TR O, Sanc h e z Oc h oa poste d bond
and le ft the Yakim a

C ounty Ja il. Outside

the ja il, fe de ra l im

m igrat ion a

uthoritie s
a ppre h e n de d Sanc he z Oc hoa and took him

into c ustody
. At ora l a rgum e nt, pla intiff’ s c ounse l re p re se nte d to the C ourt tha t Sa nc he z Oc hoa ha s be e n de porte d, a

nd the sta t e c rim i na l c ha

rge s ha ve be e n re solve d. The se fa c tua l c irc um sta

nc e s ha ve re m o ve d a

ny a c tua l or live c ontrove rsy be twe e n the p artie s, a s e nforc e m e nt of the TR O c an no longe r provide Sanc h e z Oc hoa any
2re lie f. Thus, this a ppe a l ha s be e n re n de re d m oot. Se e Bishop Paiute Tribev . Iny o C ty
. , 863 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th C ir. 2017). APPE A L DISM ISSE D. INJUNCT IO N (T E M PO RARY RE ST RAINING O RDE R) V ACAT E D.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT  23





                           Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Analytical Surveys, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-24142, No. 33-33948, No. 33-53950, No. 33-59940 and No. 333-47365) on Form
S-8 of Analytical Surveys, Inc. of our report dated December 29, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1999, which report appears
in the September 30, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys,
Inc.

                                      KPMG LLP
Denver, Colorado
December 29, 1999
Order filed October 13, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00173-CV

____________

NEGOTIATE ONE, INC., Appellant

V.

MEMBERS CHOICE CREDIT UNION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1017454

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due September 28, 2015. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 30, 2015, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
# C_2022128EN.01002402.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)

(Case T-233/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 128/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meta Cluster GmbH (Pyrbaum, Germany) (represented by: H. Baumann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Bosse and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
# C_2020201EN.01005301.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/53

---

Action brought on 24 April 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (MobileHeat)

(Case T-226/20)

(2020/C 201/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of the EU word mark MobileHeat — Application for registration No 18 029 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2020 in Case R 2472/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and Council.

---
#### Gene Meadows SMITH, Appellant, v. Joanne M. PAULK, Appellee.

No. 69-791.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 25, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Claude R. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023235EN.01003401.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Haidukevich v Council

(Case T-580/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 235/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleh Haidukevich (Semkino, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, E. d’Ursel and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021, implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Aleh Haidukevich to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Aleh Haidukevich to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, J. Gordon Huszagh,
President & Chief Executive Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained
in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2010              
|                                   
|/s/ J. Gordon Huszagh              
|J. Gordon Huszagh                  
|President & Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION**


**(Chief
      Executive Officer)**




I,
      Norman
      E. Corn, Chief Executive Officer of Clacendix, Inc. (the "Company"), certify,
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, that:





1.  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2007
      (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and





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




Dated:
                April 14, 2008
            
            /s/
                Norman E. CornNorman
                E. Corn
              Chief
                Executive Officer




This
      certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
      required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
      18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to
      the
      liability of that section.
Calendar No. 125

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1131

A BILL

To extend the method of computing the average

employee health benefits programs.title 5, United States Code, relating to Federalsubscription charges under section 8906(a) of

JUNE 30, 1993

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 125

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1131

To extend the method of computing the average subscription charges under

section 8906(a) of title 5, United States Code, relating to Federal employee health benefits programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

JUNE 30, 1993

Reported by Mr. GLENN, without amendment

A BILL

To extend the method of computing the average subscription

charges under section 8906(a) of title 5, United States

Code, relating to Federal employee health benefits programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1131 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF METHOD OF COMPUTING AVER2 AGE SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES FOR FEDERAL

3 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act entitled ‘‘An Act relating

5 to the method by which Government contributions to the

6 Federal employees health benefits program shall be com7 puted for 1990 or 1991 if no Government-wide indemnity

8 benefit plan participates in that year’’, approved August

9 11, 1989 (5 U.S.C. 8906 note; Public Law 101–76; 103

10 Stat. 556) is amended in subsection (a)(1) by striking out

11 ‘‘contract years 1990 through 1993’’ and inserting in lieu

12 thereof ‘‘contract years 1990 through 1998’’.

13 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the

14 Congress that nothing in this section should be considered

15 to reflect any view on the appropriateness, merits, or tim16 ing, or any other aspect of any comprehensive health care

17 reform legislation.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00895

- CR

Gary PETERSON , Appellant

v. The State of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- 10

- 0393

- CRC Honorable Marvin Quinney, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini , Justice Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2014
AFFIRMED Gary Peterson was convicted of the offense of misdemeanor driving while intox icated and sentenced to twelve months of community supervision. Peterson appealed. Peterson’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2014. When no b rief was filed, the clerk of this court notified Peterson ’s counsel of the deficiency. Peterson’s counsel is retained. When
Peterson ’s counsel failed to respond to the clerk’s notice , we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing. The trial court held a hearing

. Peterson’s counsel appeared at the hearing and rep resented that Peterson was not indigent and that Peterson no longer desired to04

- 13

- 00895

- CR pursue the appeal. After the hearing, the trial court filed written findings indicating that Peterson is not indigent and that Peterson no longer desire s to pursue the appeal. In a criminal case, we may not dismiss or consider an appeal without briefs unless it is shown that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute his appeal , or that he is not indigent and has failed to make the necessary arrangements for filing a brief. T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(4). However, when the trial court finds that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal, or that the appellant is not indigent but has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief, we may consider the appeal wit hout briefs, as justice may require. Id

. ; Lott v. State , 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994 ) (affirming conviction on record alone when an appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly admonished). We have reviewed the record in thi s appeal for fundamental error and have found none.
See Jaimes v. State , No. 04

- 04

- 00525

- CR, 2005 WL 50115, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (reviewing record for fundamental error after the trial court held a hearing and found the appellant no longer desired to pursue the appeal); McMahon v. State , No. 04

- 01

- 00442

- CR, 2002 WL 1285137, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (reviewing record for fundamental error after the trial court held a hearing and made appropriate findings). The trial court ’s judgment is therefore affirmed.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
#### SNEAD v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 42,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided June 15, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury, and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief will be denied for the reasons set forth in Judge Child’s opinion below.

*Application denied.*