alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018311EN.01002001.xml

| 3.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/20

---

Action brought on 19 July 2018 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Octogon)

(Case T-449/18)

(2018/C 311/21)

Language of the application: German

Parties

Applicant: Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH (Heilsbronn, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulf and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of an octogon) — Application for registration No 16 047 466

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2018 in Case R 1634/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7162

WAYNE A. SOUSER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-116, CA-02-117) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne A. Souser, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne A. Souser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Souser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
1The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1296

___________

Samuel Kenneth Willis, *

also known as Sharif Willis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 1999

Filed: January 13, 2000 

___________

Before BEAM, LAY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Kenneth Willis appeals the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Willis

was denied effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment on
2

In a supplemental pro se brief, Willis also advances the argument that his

counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine a witness. This argument is outside

the scope of the certificate of appealability and we do not consider it. See Richardson

v. Bowersox, 188 F.3d 973, 982 (8th Cir. 1999).

2–

the basis of counsel's failure: (1) to object to hearsay testimony; and (2) to challenge

the government's failure to call the juvenile hearsay declarant to testify.2

We review de novo the district court's denial of Willis's section 2255 motion.

See United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 454 (8th Cir. 1999). To establish

ineffective assistance of counsel, Willis must show that counsel's performance was

deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We find that Willis's first ineffective

assistance claim regarding counsel's failure to object to the admission of hearsay

testimony was not raised in his section 2255 motion to the district court and is therefore

procedurally defaulted. See Ford v. United States, 983 F.2d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 1993).

Even assuming the claim is properly before us, we conclude, after a careful review of

the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, that Willis cannot prevail under Strickland

as to either of his ineffective assistance claims. Because an extensive discussion of

Willis's claims would serve no useful precedential purpose, we affirm the district court's

denial of the section 2255 motion without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2019025EN.01004202.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/42

---

Action brought on 26 October 2018 — Bonnafous v Commission

(Case T-646/18)

(2019/C 25/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the present action is admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the present action is admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 9 October 2018 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to a document (the 2018 Audit Service Report on HR Management in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, registered under internal registration number ARES(2018)361356 and dated 21 January 2018), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, of Article 15(3) TFEU and of Article 42 of the Charter, on the ground that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from the public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, of Article 15(3) TFEU and of Article 42 of the Charter, on the ground that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from the public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter, that is, the duty to state reasons, in that the analysis set out in the contested decision relies on general statements and abstract reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter, that is, the duty to state reasons, in that the analysis set out in the contested decision relies on general statements and abstract reasoning.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the Commission refused to grant access to the requested document by wrongly invoking a general presumption of non-disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the Commission refused to grant access to the requested document by wrongly invoking a general presumption of non-disclosure.

---
DENY and Opinion Filed April 6, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00129-CV

IN RE VARSITY GAY LEAGUE, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01181

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Molberg

In this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court’s January 18, 

2022 order denying relator’s motion to compel discovery responses. Entitlement to 

mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court has clearly abused its 

discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

After reviewing the petition and the record, we conclude that relator has failed 

to show an abuse of discretion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for writ of mandamus. 
–2–

220129f.p05 /Ken Molberg/ 

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 3(b)
 
  Registered Office
 Other Offices
  Place of Meetings
 Annual Meetings and Advance-Notice of Business, Other than Director
Nominations and Elections
 Timing of Notice
 Content of Notice




---



##### 



Consequences of Failure to Give Proper Notice
 Public Announcement
 Compliance with Laws
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Meetings
 2




---



##### 



Waiver of Notice
 Quorum
 Adjourned Meetings
 Voting
 Proxies
 Fixing Date for Determination of Stockholders of Record
  3




---



##### 



Stockholder List
  General Powers; Organization
 4




---



##### 



Number, Qualification and Term of Office
 Vacancies
   Regular Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Special Meetings
 Waiver of Notice
 Quorum
 5




---



##### 



Committees of Directors
    Conference Communications
 Action by Written Consent of Directors
 Compensation
 Section 3.13 Advance-Notice of Stockholder-Sponsored Director Nominations
 Timing of Notice
 6




---



##### 



Content of Notice
 7




---



##### 



Consequences of Failure to Give Proper Notice
  Number
 Election, Term of Office and Qualifications
 Compensation
 Removal and Vacancies
 Chief Executive Officer
 Chairman of the Board
 President
 Vice-Presidents
 8




---



##### 



Secretary
 Treasurer
 Authority and Other Duties
  Indemnification
 Insurance
 Indemnification Upon a Change of Control
  9




---



##### 



Good Faith Defined, Etc
 10




---



##### 



Right to Indemnification Upon Application; Procedure Upon Application;
Etc
    Certain Persons Not Entitled to Indemnification
 Non-Exclusivity and Survival of Indemnification
 11




---



##### 



Successors; Meaning of Corporation
 Severability
  Certificated and Uncertificated Shares
 Issuance of Stock
 12




---



##### 



Partly Paid Stock
 Registered Stockholders
 Transfers of Stock
 Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Certificates
 Facsimile Signatures
  Dividends
 13




---



##### 



Interested Directors and Officers
 Voting Securities Held by the Corporation
 Execution of Instruments
   Advances
 Fiscal Year
 14




---



##### 



Corporate Seal
 Power to Amend
 15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     854,018
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              298,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                                21,900
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,168,296
<PP&E>                                                   2,094,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,134,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2,274,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,559,321
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                  1,831
<COMMON>                                                     5,123
<OTHER-SE>                                                 (21,080)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             2,274,563
<SALES>                                                    928,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           928,505
<CGS>                                                       94,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            8,221,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         135,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (7,294,032)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (7,294,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (7,294,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (1.86)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. 99-41499

_____________________

CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. 1, now known as Laguna Madre Water District; ET AL;

Plaintiffs,

CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. 1, now known as Laguna Madre Water District;

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NUEVACORP INC. d/b/a Sand Dollar Realty and Management; JOHN P. THOBE

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CV-119

_________________________________________________________________ July 6, 2001

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have considered carefully the complex and tortured record

in this case, examining its travels through the state court, then

to the district court, then to the bankruptcy court, and finally to2

the district court once again. We conclude that the district court

did not err in dismissing the claims asserted in this appeal. This

case has been pending since South Bay Links filed its original

petition on August 9, 1995. Our consideration of the record,

briefs, and oral argument leads us to the conclusion that the only

alleged damages that the appellants have not abandoned and can

articulate relate to the cost of pre-litigation negotiations with

South Bay Links for the water contracts, the attorney’s costs and

fees for the defense of the South Bay lawsuit brought against the

Water D istrict, and the attorneys’ costs and fees relating to

Thobe’s intervention against the Water District, all of which seem

to have been disregarded or transformed by the district court into

a request for sanctions against Thobe and Nuevacorp. Even when

thes e incurred costs are considered as damages alleged in the

complaint, the Water District fails to allege facts sufficient to

establish causation on the pa rt of Thobe and Nuevacorp.

Furt hermore, when these costs are treated as sanctions, we hold

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

sanctions against Thobe and Nuevacorp. The judgment of the

district court is therefore

A F F I R M E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                0000854883
<NAME>                               EDD HELMS GROUP, INC.

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                            371,916
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,645,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (78,044)
<INVENTORY>                                       466,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,760,922
<PP&E>                                          2,568,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,746,038)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,878,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,994,220
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          126,740
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,512,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,878,873
<SALES>                                        11,985,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,985,794
<CGS>                                           8,750,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,161,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 34,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   150,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               150,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      150,226
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .01


</TABLE>
September 29 , 2016

Mr. Zachary Prater
Prater's Midwest Dive Service
501 S West St reet Vermont, IL 61484

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 493 3

Dear Mr. Prater :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petit ion, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possi ble. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dan Ngo Program Analyst
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2004 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.

This 6th day of August, 2004.

/s/ R. Daniel Blanton
---------------------
R. Daniel Blanton
President &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)

 /s/ Ronald L. Thigpen
----------------------
Ronald L. Thigpen
Executive Vice President &
Chief Operating Officer
(Principal financial officer)


<PAGE>