alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019413EN.01004701.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of an ellipsoidal bottle)

(Case T-68/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 413/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Case R 413/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
#### DeWalt et al., Appellants, *v.*Pittsburgh Railways Company.

*Negligence*— Street *railways*— Summer *car*— Height *of running hoard*— Fall *in attempting to hoard car.*

A verdict is properly directed for the defendant in an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a fall while plaintiff was attempting to board an electric summer ear, in which the negligence charged as the cause of her injuries was the height of the running board above the street, at the point where the car stopped, where there is no evidence that the height of the running board, which was twenty-three inches, was improper or unsafe and it appeared that the plaintiff was a woman weighing 215 pounds and that her weight may have prevented her from getting on the ear.

Argued Oct. 16, 1918.

Appeal, No. 73, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. *237T. , 1917, No. 955, on verdict for defendant in case of Priscilla DeWalt and Peter DeWalt, her husband, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company.

January 4, 1919:

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Fox, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Carnahan, J.

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in giving binding instructions for defendant.

*A. J. Eckles,*with him *T. M. Gealey,*for appellants.

There was sufficient evidence of negligence to submit the case to the jury: Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310; Lamb v. Penna. R. R. Co., 259 Pa. 536; Thorne v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 237 Pa. 20; Royer v. Penna. R. R. Co., 259 Pa. 438; Lewis v. Wood, 247 Pa. 545; Haas v. Wichita R. & Light Co., 132 Pac. Rep. 195.

*Clarence Burleigh*and *William A. Challener,*for appellee, not heard.

Per Curiam,

An electric summer car of the defendant company stopped a short distance from a regular stopping place on one of the streets of Pittsburgh, to permit the appellant to board it. In attempting to get on the running board she took hold of an upright stanchion to pull herself up, but fell and was injured. What caused her to fall does not clearly appear. She weighed two hundred and fifteen pounds, and it may be that her weight prevented her from getting on the car. The negligence with which she charges the company as the cause of her injuries is the height of the running board above the *238street at the point where the car stopped. This height was twenty-three inches, but there was no proof, nor offer to prove, that it was improper or unsafe, and a verdict was directed for the defendant, on the ground that no negligence on its part had been disclosed, the court correctly saying to the jury: “The plaintiff did not meet with the accident because the car started — because the running board was slippery — because there was anything the matter with the car....... I cannot see that there is any negligence on the part of the railway company.” We need add nothing to this in affirming the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1





                                   EXHIBIT 21





<PAGE>   2
Exhibit 21

         First Patriot Bankshares Corporation owns 100% of Patriot National
Bank, a national banking association headquartered in the community of Reston,
Virginia.

         First Patriot Bankshares Corporation owns 75% of 2071 Chain Bridge
Road, L.L.C., a limited liability company under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.  The company was formed for the sole purpose of acquiring and
managing an office building located at 2017 Chain Bridge Road, Vienna,
Virginia.  Patriot National Bank owns the remaining 25% of 2071 Chain Bridge
Road, L.L.C..





                                       64
# C_2020068EN.01002701.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/27

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing — Germany) — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC

(Case C-465/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(8)(c) and (9) - Off-premises contract - Concept of ‘business premises’ - Contract entered into at a stand at a trade fair immediately after the consumer, who was in a common area of the fair, had been solicited by the trader)

(2020/C 68/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Straubing

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH

Defendant: GC

Operative part of the order

Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 2(9) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer at a stand run by the trader at a trade fair, immediately after the consumer, who was in the aisle common to the various stands present in an exhibition hall of the fair, had been solicited by that trader, is an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that provision

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- Section 906 Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SBS Technologies, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the"Report"), I, Clarence W. Peckham, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

/s/ Clarence W. Peckham 

Clarence W. Peckham*Chief Executive Officer*February 8, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN MAURICE OAKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (1:00-cr-00154-CMC; 1:03-cv-00497) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Maurice Oakman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Brian Maurice Oakman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Oakman has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021035EN.01001201.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v VR

(Case C-303/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Article 11 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Legislation of a Member State excluding, for the determination of rights to a family benefit, the family members of a long-term resident who do not reside in the territory of that Member State)

(2021/C 35/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Defendant: VR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of determining entitlement to a social security benefit, the family members of a long-term resident, within the meaning of Article 2(b) thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that Member State, but in a third country are not taken into account, whereas the family members of a national of that Member State who reside in a third country are taken into account, where that Member State has not expressed its intention of relying on the derogation to equal treatment permitted by Article 11(2) of that directive by transposing it into national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
[Cite as State ex rel. Newell v. Fuerst, 2012-Ohio-3697.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98198 

STATE EX REL. EMANUEL NEWELL 

RELATOR 

vs. 

JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRITS DENIED 

Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo 

Motion No. 454755 

Order No. 456990 

RELEASE DATE: August 14, 2012 
RELATOR 

Emanuel Newell 

No. A206453 

Allen Correctional Institution 

Attention C-Unit 

2338 North West Street 

Lima, Ohio 45802 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason, Esq. 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss, Esq. 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: 

{¶1} On April 10, 2012, the relator, Emanuel Newell, commenced this 

mandamus and procedendo action against Judge William Mahon1

 to compel the judge to 

rule on two motions — (1) Motion to compel as for contempt in disobeying judgment and 

(2) Motion to vacate journal entry filed 12-2-88 — which Newell filed in late 2011 in the 

underlying case, State v. Newell, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-226066. On May 3, 2012, the 

respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary 

judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a 

certified copy of a May 1, 2012 journal entry which denied both motions. Newell 

never filed a response. Because the May 1, 2012 journal entry establishes that Newell 

has received his requested relief, rulings on the subject motions, this writ action is moot. 

{¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) which requires that an 

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his 

private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to 

 1 The original respondent was former judge William Mahon. In a prior entry, this court 

recognized that presiding Judge Nancy A. Fuerst is the assigned judge to the underlying case and 

instructed the clerk to substitute Judge Nancy Fuerst as the respondent and to change the caption in 

this action accordingly. See Civ.R.25(D).
deny the writs, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. 

Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842. 

{¶3} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and denies the application for writs of procedendo and mandamus. Relator to 

pay costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶4} Writs denied. 

 

 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
**Exhibit 31.01**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.; 

     2. Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors: 

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting. 

60

----
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03519

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2018301EN.01001702.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings v C.M. Service Srl, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

(Case C-402/18)

(2018/C 301/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings

Respondent: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

Respondent and cross-appellant: C.M. Service Srl

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 25 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) and Article 71 of Directive 2014//24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (2) which do not contemplate any limits on the proportion of the contract that may be subcontracted or on the reduction in prices that may be applied to subcontractors, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national rules on public procurement, such as the Italian rules contained in Article 118(2) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, pursuant to which no more than 30 % of the total value of the contract may be subcontracted and the successful contractor must apply in respect of the subcontracted services the same unit prices as those stipulated in the decision awarding the contract, with a reduction of not more than 20 %?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,786
<PP&E>                                          38,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 669,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,930
<BONDS>                                        485,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   669,049
<SALES>                                        235,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,496
<CGS>                                          172,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  172,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 701 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 701

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 27, 2016.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4498) to clarify the definition of general 
solicitation under Federal securities law. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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 Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in 
the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question; 
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```