alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 240/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.240.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 240 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5418 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.240.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 240

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5418 August 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 240/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6299 — KKR/Sorgenia/Sorgenia France) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 240/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6278 — Takeda/Nycomed) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 240/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6324 — Bain Capital/Hellman & Friedman/Securitas Direct) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 240/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6299 — KKR/Sorgenia/Sorgenia France) (1)

1

2011/C 240/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6278 — Takeda/Nycomed) (1)

1

2011/C 240/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6324 — Bain Capital/Hellman & Friedman/Securitas Direct) (1)

2

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2011/C 240/04 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 5 July 2011 on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements relating to residential property (CON/2011/58) | 3 |

III   Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

European Central Bank

2011/C 240/04

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 5 July 2011 on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements relating to residential property (CON/2011/58)

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 240/05 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 240/05

Euro exchange rates

8

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 240/06 | State aid — Finland — State aid SA.32602 (11/C) — Modification to investment aid and young farmer start-up support granted under the Act on the Financing of Rural Industries | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 240/06

State aid — Finland — State aid SA.32602 (11/C) — Modification to investment aid and young farmer start-up support granted under the Act on the Financing of Rural Industries

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32-2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRYStephen R. Wherry
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer) May 12, 2011
# C_2023179EN.01003101.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-545/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1011/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 of Brooktrout, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Leahy, Vice President of Finance and Operations of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Dated: March 27, 2003 |  | By: | /s/ROBERT C. LEAHYRobert C. Leahy Vice President of Finance and Operations
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|--------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Jimmy Rogers BEW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Will T. Scott, Legal Intern, for appellee.

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

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction and sentence on a charge of carrying a concealed firearm. His trial was held non-jury on a pica of not guilty. The sentence imposed was for a term of one year in the Dade County Jail.

The sole point on appeal is whether or not the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence against him, i. e., the pistol. Appellant’s counsel argues that there was no probable cause for the arrest of the appellant, therefore, the evidence admitted was the result of an illegal search and seizure and should have been suppressed.

We cannot agree. The testimony of the officer making the arrest was to the effect that the appellant was seen by the officer at the intersection of N.W. Second Avenue and Fifty-fifth Street, Miami, at about 8:00 P.M. The appellant was in a hot and sweaty condition when the officer saw him. The officer thought this condition was an indication that the appellant had *466been running. The appellant was pointed out to the officer by a group of people as being the person who had been doing the shooting that had been reported earlier on the police radio. The officer arrested appellant and immediately patted him down. The pistol was found concealed in appellant’s right front pocket.

We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances upon which the officer based the arrest and search and have concluded that they were sufficient to give him reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed or was being committed and the person being arrested had committed it or was committing it. Fla.Stat. § 901.15(3), F.S.A.; see also State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 392; Kekic v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 487.

For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, we have concluded that no error has been made to appear. Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of K.D., C.D., and C.F., III,
Children

No. 06

- 17

- 00068

- CV Appeal from the 115th District Court of Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16

- 00038 ). Memorandum Opinion delive red by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and
Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 17, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### INMAN, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPLES, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2021431EN.01005701.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/57

---

Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — PJ v EIT

(Case T-12/21) (1)

(2021/C 431/68)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Sim SUTTERBY, Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 69-803.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Michael Williams, Appellant, v Kevin Walsh, as Sheriff of Onondaga County, et al., Respondents.

[656 NYS2d 979]

Motion to reverse order denied. Memorandum: If appellant wishes to expedite this appeal, he should file a motion for poor person relief, compile the record and file the briefs as soon as possible. Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ. (Filed Feb. 27, 1997.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-20185

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH; ALI REZA DADI; and

ANDY AHMAD BOUJABADI,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CR-149-1)

______________________________________________________ February 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellants challenge their convictions for conspiracy to

obstruct justice and aiding and abetting each other in committing

the substantive offense, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and

1503. Appellants raise the following issues on appeal:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction;

whether the district court abused its discretion in giving its

instruction to the jury regarding the charge of obstruction of

justice; whether the district court abused its discre tion in

denying defendants' motion for a mistrial ba sed on an alleged1 Dadi is not without a remedy for his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim. He may seek collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. S ee United States v. Ugalde

, 861 F.2d 802, 809 (5th Cir. 1988).

2 Giglio violat ion by the government; whether the district court

erred in refusing to disclose a witness' presentence report to

defendants for impeachment purposes; whether the district court

abused its discretion in admitting appellant Dadi's prior

conviction; and whether appellant Dadi received ineffective counsel

in violation of his Sixth Amendment right.

After reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and

argument of counsel, we decline to consider Dadi's ineffective

assistance of counsel argument because it was not ade quately

presented to the district court. 1

We have considered the other arguments on the merits and find

them without merit.

AFFIRMED.
Motion Granted; Vacated and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 13, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00552-CV

EDMUNDO TIJERINA, JR. AND ROYAL CAR WASH, INC., Appellants

V.

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO FIRST 

NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-17386

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 15, 2016.

On August 5, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion for dismissal seeking to: 

(1) vacate the judgment of the 157th District Court of Harris County, Texas in 

Cause Number 2014-17386; (2) dismiss the claims of all parties with prejudice 

such that they take nothing by way of their claims; and (3) find that the parties 
2

shall each bear their own costs and fees. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is 

granted.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment signed April 15, 2016, and we remand 

the cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’

agreement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
# C_2022418EN.01003502.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/35

---

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-373/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 418/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia) (represented by: V. Jakubička, lawyer)

Objet

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 April 2021 (Case R 1195/2020-4).

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. | Etablissements Nicolas and St. Nicolaus a.s. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Etablissements Nicolas and St. Nicolaus a.s. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
#### Francis D. CIPOLATO et al., Appellants, v. Barbara M. Lenz HAYDEN, Appellee.

No. 73-945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ethel Stone LEVY v. John B. ORR, Jr., et al.

No. 38488.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 61.
# C_2023007EN.01002701.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern II)

(Case T-275/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern - Absolute ground for invalidity - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Overall assessment of the evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Geographical scope of the evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Evidence of use of the mark on the internet - Evidence regarding infringement proceedings)

(2023/C 7/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, N. Parrotta and P.-Y. Gautier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2021 (Case R 1307/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
**EXHIBIT 24.3**

 

 

**Power of Attorney**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravineand David Kirwan the undersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-fact andagents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in theundersigned’s name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign FischerImaging Corporation’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”) and any or all amendments to theForm 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and otherdocuments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,granting unto each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power andauthority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite andnecessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents andpurposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying andconfirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or hissubstitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereto.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this31st day of March, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  CHARLOTTE  PETERSEN |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Signature                          |
|   |                               |
|   | Charlotte  Petersen                |
|   | Print  Name:                       |

 

----
# C_2022244EN.01003101.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-107/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2023104EN.01002001.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — A, B, C, legally represented by his parents v Ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Asile

(Case C-153/21, (1) Ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Asile)

(2023/C 104/25)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  
  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAMONT ANTHONY FULTON,

Petitioner

v.

PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON 

PLEAS,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of May, 2023, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.