alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Bureau IT Leadership Directory

                        - bureauCode: 31
                        - firstName: David
                        - lastName: Shive
                        - employmentType: SES
                        - employmentTypeOther: null
                        - TypeOfAppointment: Career
                        - otherResponsibilities: null
                        - evaluationRatingOfficialTitle: Administrator
                        - evaluationReviewingOfficialTitle: null
                        - keyBureauCIO: null

Print PageEmail Page

Top
# C_2022340EN.01003702.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)

(Case T-288/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ALOve - Earlier international figurative mark LOVe - Relative ground for refusal - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 340/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cartier International AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 18 March 2021 (Case R 2679/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

DEMETRIUS NICKENS, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 12

- 0888 (ESH)

:

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.

, :

____________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2012, d efendant District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedur e. (DC’s Mot. to Dismiss, Sept. 4, 2012 [ECF No. 15].) By Order dated

September 5, 2012, t he Court advised plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and specifically warned

plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the motion by October 5 , 2012, the Court may treat the

motion as conceded. To date, plaintiff neither has filed an opposition to the motion and nor has

requested more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Distric t of Columbia ’s

motion as conceded.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 11, 2012 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TRAVIS MCKINNLEY FRIEND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-99-201, CA-01-836)

Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 19, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis McKinnley Friend, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood,

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis McKinnley Friend appeals from the denial of his 18

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence in which he

alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Friend pled guilty

pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere

with interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000), and

carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000). Thereafter, Friend pled

guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to a separate incident

of carjacking. Both carjackings resulted in the deaths of the

victims, and Friend received two life sentences. 

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order

in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that

Friend has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a
3

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland P. BACHMAN and Vickie L. Bachman, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 82-1290.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 12, 1982.

Decided June 30, 1983.

*485Richard D. Hermann Law Office, Richard D. Hermann, W.J. Durrenberger, Ankeny, Iowa, for defendants-appellants.

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Wynette J. Hewett, William P. Wang, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before HEANEY and GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD*, Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior'United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation,

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question whether the Government may sell, under 26 U.S.C. § 7403, a homestead held as joint tenants with right of survivorship under Iowa law (the funds for purchase of same having been provided by the wife tenant) in order to enforce the tax liability of the husband tenant.

At the request of the parties decision was deferred pending disposition by the Supreme Court of a case which it was thought might be determinative of the case at bar.

On May 31, 1983, the Supreme Court decided *U.S. v.*Rodgers, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 October Term 1982, involving a homestead under Texas law. In a 5 to 4 decision the Court held that the entire property may be sold, but that there is a degree of discretion vested in the District Court and certain specified factors to be considered in determining the appropriate action for protection of non-delinquent third parties. In *Rodgers*the Court remanded for exercise of equitable discretion by the District Court in the first instance.

In our opinion the same course should be followed in the case at bar. We remand the cause to the District Court, for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Rodgers.*

Remanded.
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three months ended               Six months ended
                                                                          June 30,                          June 30,
                                                                 ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                                     1998           1997             1998            1997
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                              <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Numerator:
   Numerator for basic and diluted income per share - net
   income                                                        $ 1,296,699     $ 1,413,531     $ 2,454,203     $ 2,553,167
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Denominator:
   Denominator for basic income per share - weighted average
      common shares                                               12,642,973      12,852,582      12,670,214      12,868,702
   Effect of dilutive securities:
      Stock options, net                                             391,376         416,977         359,029         425,475
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
   Denominator for diluted income per share                       13,034,349      13,269,559      13,029,243      13,294,177
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Basic income per share                                           $      0.10     $      0.11     $      0.19     $      0.20
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Diluted income per share                                         $      0.10     $      0.11     $      0.19     $      0.19
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
</TABLE>

                                       16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

DEMETRIUS NICKENS, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 12-0888 (ESH)

:

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., :

____________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2012, defendant District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (DC’s Mot. to Dismiss, Sept. 4, 2012 [ECF No. 15].) By Order dated 

September 5, 2012, the Court advised plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and specifically warned 

plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the motion by October 5, 2012, the Court may treat the 

motion as conceded. To date, plaintiff neither has filed an opposition to the motion and nor has 

requested more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the District of Columbia’s 

motion as conceded. 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 11, 2012 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

United States District Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 274-275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8992]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Buddhist Art of Myanmar'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to

[[Page 275]]

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, 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 objects to be included in the 
exhibition ``Buddhist Art of Myanmar,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society Museum, New York, 
New York, from on or about February 10, 2015, until on or about May 10, 
2015, 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 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 19, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-30851 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-61587, 33-61589, and 33-64149 of Habersham Bancorp on Forms S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 333-18023 of Habersham Bancorp on Form S-3 of our
report dated January 17, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Habersham Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 1997.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 1998


                                       71
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC'nON AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthome Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901


## DEC {l 

## 2009**~r.** Jack Broadbent Air Pollution Control Officer Bay Area**AQ~D** 939 Ellis Street

. San Francisco, CA 94109-7799

Re: Guidance on Appendix S Non-Attainment NSR Permitting for**P~2.5** Sources During**P~2.5** Transition Period

# De~cnt: Thank you for your letter dated October 28, 2009, following our meeting on September 10, 2009. Your letter requests my office to provide written concurrence with the approach the Bay Area Air Quality**~anagement** District intends to follow during the transition period until it has a rule regulating non-attainment permitting for major sources of**P~25** approved into the State Implementation Plan. We have reviewed the approach laid out in detail in your October 28 th letter and concur that your approach is adequate to implement the requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S during the transition period.
Please call me or Gerardo Rios ofmy staff at (415) 972-3974 ifyou have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Director, Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### George Paul BALLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 24, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after having been found guilty by a jury on charges of first degree murder.

We have given full consideration to the record on appeal, briefs and oral argument of the parties. It appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that prejudicial error was committed in the proceedings below, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 99 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 99

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 6, 2013.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments 
and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and 
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2022340EN.01005702.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/57

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2022 — Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung v EMA

(Case T-713/21) (1)

(2022/C 340/78)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
-  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) 
-  Filing an Appeal Online      -  DAB E-File 
  -  Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File 
-  Different Appeals at DAB      -  Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)         -  Forms 
    -  Procedures 
  -  Appeals to Board        -  Practice Manual 
    -  Guidelines 
    -  Regulations 
    -  National Coverage Determination Complaints 
  -  Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)        -  Forms 
    -  Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project 
-  Alternative Dispute Resolution Services      -  Sharing Neutrals 
  -  ADR Training 
  -  Other ADR Services 
-  DAB Decisions      -  Board Decisions 
  -  DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions 
  -  Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions 
-  Stakeholder Feedback 
-  Careers      -  Open Career Opportunities 
  -  Internships & Externships 
-  About DAB      -  Organizational Overview 
  -  Who are the Judges? 
  -  DAB Divisions 
  -  Contact DAB 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# DAB Decisions

The DAB has three adjudicatory divisions, each with its own set of judges, staff and areas of jurisdiction. Each division issues its own decisions which may be reviewed here.

##             Board Decisions          

##             DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions          

##             Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions          

##             Updates to Decision Formats          

Content last reviewed September 13, 2016
December 12, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commision
Judicial Plaza
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Re:     Analytical Surveys, Inc.

                               CONSENT OF COUNSEL

     I hereby  consent  to the use of my name as  legal  counsel  in the  Annual
Report  pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996 filed by Analytical  Surveys,  Inc.
on Form 10-KSB.

DANIEL P. EDWARDS, P.C.

/s/ Daniel P. Edwards
DANIEL P. EDWARDS, President
# C_2022257EN.01003202.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case T-237/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FIS - Earlier EU word mark IFIS - 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))

(2022/C 257/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Banca IFIS SpA (Mestre, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2021 (Case R 1460/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banca IFIS and Fidelity National Information Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
# C_2022340EN.01004202.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-792/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report and other documents relating to a legislative initiative in the environmental field - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 340/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 12 October 2021 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents relating to the European Union’s legislative initiative regarding sustainable corporate governance.

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. | The European Commission is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---