alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022244EN.01003701.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-506/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Contracts concluded by the Commission on behalf of the Member States for the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines - Invitation emails to meetings of the Steering Committee - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - The transmission of personal data is not necessary for a specific purpose in the public interest - Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725)

(2022/C 244/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 June 2021 partially refusing to grant him access to certain documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                       135
<INVENTORY>                                     35,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,923
<PP&E>                                           3,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                     728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,139
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,985
<SALES>                                         33,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,945
<CGS>                                           24,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,850
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TIMOTHY JAMES THORNE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Parkersburg

. John T. Copenhaver, Jr. , District Judge. ( 6:13

- cr - 00148

- 1; 2:15

- cv 16027 )

Submitted : October 18, 2018 Decided: October 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Timothy James Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES A TTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy James Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and deny ing relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Thorne that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation might waive appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation

. Despite this warning, and two extensions to address the delinquency, Thorne failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s re commendation.
T he timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate rev iew. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Thorne has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Ronald A. CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1239.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, and David Halpner, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hamilton v. State, 133 Fla. 481, 182 So. 854 (1938); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 212; Gagne v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 90.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            2369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4200
<PP&E>                                           78321
<DEPRECIATION>                                   28952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   54596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1284
<BONDS>                                          56466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3154)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     54596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16503
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2142
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    25.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    25.65
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roubik Gregorian 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 31, 2006 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: November 8, 2006



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ ROUBIK GREGORIAN                           
|Roubik Gregorian                               
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Wayne B. Fuquay, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Analytical Surveys, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants 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 subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this annual report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2004 
|                      
|/s/    Wayne B. Fuquay
|                       |  | Wayne B. Fuquay                      
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022418EN.01003002.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network)

(Case T-521/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: N. Marquard and P. Koch, 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, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, 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 June 2021 (Case R 1621/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
#### Lanell N. BRANCH, individually as widow of Comer W. Branch, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Walter Robin HALE and Fred A. Jones, Jr., Appellees.

No. 71-1432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 1972.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, Goldstein, Franklin, Chonin & Schrank, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Charles C. Papy, Jr., Coral Gables, Fred A. Jones, Jr., and Richard W. Aschen-brenner, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: In re Estate of Yohn, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 290, at 295.
#### West 16th Street Tenants Corp., Respondent, v Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 34]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered March 22, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel plaintiff to accept late service of the answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 15, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

*279This is an action for, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that defendant insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff cooperative corporation against a personal injury claim under primary and umbrella commercial general liability policies. The accident giving rise to the claim occurred on October 11, 1999, but plaintiff did not give defendant notice of the occurrence until more than five months later, after it was served with the summons and complaint in the underlying personal injury action. Defendant received notice of the claim on March 28, 2000, and disclaimed coverage on April 27, 2000 on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with policy conditions requiring it to give notice of any occurrence that might give rise to a claim “as soon as practicable.” After this action was commenced, defendant inadvertently served its answer on the attorney for the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, and plaintiff subsequently moved for entry of a default judgment herein.

Although defendant’s default was excusable (see, CPLR 2005), the motion court correctly granted the motion for a default judgment on the ground that defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense. Plaintiff's delay in notifying defendant of the occurrence giving rise to the claim, the sole ground on which defendant disclaimed coverage, was obvious from the face of the notice of claim and the accompanying complaint, and defendant had no need to conduct an investigation before determining whether to disclaim. Defendant’s 30-day delay in disclaiming coverage was therefore unreasonable as a matter of law under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) *(see, City of New York v Northern Ins. Co.,*284 AD2d 291, *lv dismissed*97 NY2d 638; *Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner,*199 AD2d 507). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1174 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1174

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1174

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D. ZHONDETSKAYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Olga 
D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States 
upon the filing of the appropriate application and upon being 
administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate 
ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the Senate July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Donald MacLEAN and George MacLean, Appellants, v. FISHERMEN’S HAVEN, INC., an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,218
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,591
<OTHER-SE>                                         464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,713)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Blnford Hester, R. L. Taylor, and C. C. Patten, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 7575.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 8, 1937.

William Green, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Fitzhugh, Murrah & Fitzhugh, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellees.

Before FUCKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon the motion of counsel for the appellants to dismiss the appeal herein, and, it appearing to this court that said motion was made before hearing on the merits of the appeal, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without prejudice.
COMMISSIONERS GABRIEL J. RAMOS DfSTRICT I BRETT A. KASTEN DISTRICT 2 CHRISTY MILLER DISTRICT 3

October 8, 2012 Dennis

### J. DeVany 

## GRANT COUNTY

Chief, Essential Air ServicesDivision U.S. Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: EAS Contract for Grant County, NewMexico
Dear

### Mr. DeVany, COUNTY MANAGER JON PAUL SAARI telephone: (575) 574-0008 Fax: (575) 574-0073

Withrespect to your request for input on the EAS contract concerning air service to Silver City 

### I Hurley 

### I Deming, NewMexico (Grant CountyAirport), I would like to offer the following information. The Grant County Commission, acting as owners ofthe airport to be serviced by this contract, has reviewed the proposals for Essential Air Service to Denver or Phoenix. Based upon the current users ofGreatLakes Airlines, the County Commission wouldlike to have the Essential Air Service continue with Great Lakes Airlines with two round trip services a day to Phoenix. I appreciate yourefforts in securing these services for the citizens ofGrant Countyto keep usconnected with a**m~or** hub. Please contact me at 575-574-2068 ifyou require any additional information,



### Office Of The Grant County Commissioners 1400 Highway 180 East, Silver City, NM 88061 • P. 0. Box 898, Silver City, NM 88062
260 La. 693

#### Petition of MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY (concerning Joseph Heck).

No. 52146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: Maryland Casualty Company applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and review.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the ruling complained of.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Richard Darnell Amos, * From the 32nd District Court

of Nolan County,

Trial Court No. 12367.

Vs. No. 11-19-00055-CR * February 4, 2021

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.