alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022237EN.01005301.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/53

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)

(Case T-343/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aruba SpA (Ponte San Pietro, Italy) (represented by: N. Scardaccione, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 259/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aruba and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development.

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. | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
# C_2022037EN.01000801.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2021 — ZS v Zweckverband ‘Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen’ KISA, a body governed by public law

(Case C-560/21)

(2022/C 37/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZS

Defendant: Zweckverband ‘Kommunale Informationsverarbeitung Sachsen’ KISA, a body governed by public law

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (the General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as, in the present case, the first sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection), which makes dismissal of the data protection officer by the controller, who is his or her employer, subject to the conditions set out therein, irrespective of whether such dismissal relates to the performance of his or her tasks?
  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (the General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as, in the present case, the first sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection), which makes dismissal of the data protection officer by the controller, who is his or her employer, subject to the conditions set out therein, irrespective of whether such dismissal relates to the performance of his or her tasks?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR have a sufficient legal basis, in particular in so far as the provision covers data protection officers who have an employment relationship with the controller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR have a sufficient legal basis, in particular in so far as the provision covers data protection officers who have an employment relationship with the controller?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
Opinion issued January 30 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00763
- CV

——————————— HARCHARAN NARANG AND RANJIT KAUR , Appella nts V. DAVID TANG , Appell e e
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1110096

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s, Harcharan Narang and Ranjit Kaur, have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. More than ten days have passed since the filing of the motion, and no party has objected to dismissal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 10.3(a). No opinion has issued2

in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pendi ng motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.
#### CONCORD SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Robert S. BOOKBINDER, Appellee.

No. 69-189.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 12, 1969.

Edward Brigham, for appellant.

Melvin I. Muroff, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The principal point on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant’s motion for a new trial. The only ground for new trial argued is that an altercation which occurred outside the courtroom may have influenced the jury verdict. See Owens v. State, 68 Fla. 154, 67 So. 39 (1914).

A review of the record demonstrates that the trial judge made full inquiry of the jury prior to their discharge. From the *889replies of the jurors it is clear that no prejudice to the appellant resulted. Cf. First Nat. Bank in Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, Fla. 1952, 56 So.2d 922.

Affirmed.
Opinion issued April 20 , 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00288
- CV

——————————— IN RE MLAR GROUP, LLC D/B/A INTEGRITY TRANSPORTATION

AND SONJA ANN COLLIER , Relat or s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relators, MLAR Group LLC and Sonja Ann Collier, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order striking their counter

- affidavit regarding real party in interest’s medical expenses. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
.2

C ODE § 18.001(f). 1 We deny the petition. See In re Flores , 597 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding)

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Alejandro Perez v. Sanja Callier, Juan Rivas, Ernesto Antonio Rivas, and MLAR Group, LLC , cause number 2018

- 64992 , pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer presiding.
# C_2022171EN.01003702.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-425/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 7415 final of 21 October 2020 amending Implementing Decision C(2018) 6712 on the selection and award of grants under the Connecting Europe Facility in the sector of Telecommunication.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
#### Barbara Catherine STEDELIN, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF POMPANO BEACH, Executor for the Estate of Jerome J. Stedelin, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 72-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek

Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Perry Law, 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 Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section

13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)   The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Perry Law

------------------------------

Perry Law

Chief Financial Officer

May 18, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41367 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO TARULA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-193-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Roberto Tarula-Gonzalez has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in this appeal of a conviction and sentence imposed for the violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-10714 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00641-CEH-SPC

LEONARD WAYNE TAYLOR, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

J. H. KINNEY, 

Sergeant,

WARDEN, HAMILTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

M. STEVENSON, 

Classification Officer (former Sergeant), 

SECRETARY, DOC, et al., 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 22, 2011)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Leonard Wayne Taylor, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal

without prejudice of his complaint under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The provision prohibits a prisoner

from filing a civil action if he has, “on 3 or more prior occasions, . . . brought an

action or appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. When

Taylor filed his complaint on October 15, 2010, the district court had dismissed

only two civil actions filed by Taylor. See Taylor v. Germany, D.C. Docket No.

98-cv-00263; Taylor v. Germany, D.C. Docket No. 98-cv-00305. The district

court dismissed Taylor’s third civil action afterward on October 29, 2010, see

Taylor v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., D.C. Docket No. 09-cv-23715, which

does not count as a “strike” against Taylor under section 1915(g). We VACATE

the judgment dismissing Taylor’s complaint, and we REMAND for further

proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2
Exhibit 32.2




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


(Chief Financial Officer)





I, Patrick E. Delaney, Chief Financial 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-K of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2008 (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.





/s/ Patrick E.
      DelaneyDated: March 26, 2009
                        Patrick E. DelaneyChief Financial
  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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements for Independence Tax Credit Plus L.P. IV and is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000940329
<NAME>                        Independence Tax Credit Plus L.P. IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         12,266,052 
<SECURITIES>                                   17,000,000 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0          
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0          
<INVENTORY>                                    0          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               391,570    
<PP&E>                                         43,916,757 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,134,299  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 73,996,062 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,896,928  
<BONDS>                                        24,839,972 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0          
<PREFERRED>                                    0          
<COMMON>                                       0          
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,259,162 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   73,996,062 
<SALES>                                        0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,655,915  
<CGS>                                          0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,443,119  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             780,824    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (551,857)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0          
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0          
<CHANGES>                                      0          
<NET-INCOME>                                   (551,857)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.92)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0          
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,397,897
<SECURITIES>                                25,986,493
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,266,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,556,842
<PP&E>                                       1,376,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,163,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,004,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,149
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,057,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,163,364
<SALES>                                      3,849,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,849,768
<CGS>                                        2,482,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,077,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                815,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            814,970
<DISCONTINUED>                            (16,185,915)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,370,945)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.42)
        

</TABLE>
#### James B. SLATER, Jr. v. VICTORIA FONTENOT SLATER.

No. 62520.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Victoria Fontenot Slater, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the *1177Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Rapides.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
#### BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE v. James Edward LEWARK, Jr. and Katheryn Ann Warren.

No. 53513.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: James Edward Lewark, Jr., et al applying for writs of prohibition, certiorari and review.

Granted. (See order).

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J.,

are of the opinion there is no basis for granting this writ.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Henry J. Roberts, Jr., Judge of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 12th day of June, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 12th day of June, 1973, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., are of the opinion there is no basis for granting this writ.
# C_2022171EN.01003001.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock)

(Case T-86/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Makeblock - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Makeblock Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 988/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Distintiva Solutions and Makeblock.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---
#### In re the ESTATE of Paul BOLTON, a/k/a Paul Victor Bolton, Deceased.

No. 73-167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Probate Division, Broward County; Paul M. Marko, HI, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2021278EN.01003301.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 30 April 2021 — P.I. v Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos

(Case C-280/21)

(2021/C 278/46)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P.I.

Respondent: Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos

Question referred

Is opposition to an illegally operating and corruptly influential group which oppresses an applicant for asylum through the machinery of the State and against which it is impossible to mount a legitimate defence due to extensive corruption in the State to be regarded as equivalent to attributed political opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of Directive 2011/95/EU? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---
#### James E. WEAVER v. STATE.

No. 38551.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 53.
#### Mrs. El Hugh FERGUSON v. JOHNSON IMPLEMENT CO., Inc.

No. 45387.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 26, 1969.

J. W. Kellum, Sumner, for appellant.

Sullivan, Dunbar & Smith, David R. Hunt, Clarksdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.