alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 18, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00709

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.F.L.,

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 12

- 00205CVL Honorable Melissa Uram

- Degerolami, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Accordingly, this court must dispose of this appeal no later than 180 days after the date the notice of appeal was filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6. The reporter’s record for this appeal w as due to be filed on November 2, 2015

. On November 23, 2015, the reporter filed a notice of late record stating she received notice of the appeal on November 18 th and requesting an additional 10 days to prepare the record. The Reporter’s Record still has not been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter file the records in this court on or before December 21 , 2015. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE RECORD WILL NOT BE ALLOWED

.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 784 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 784

     Expressing support for the designation of Journeymen Linemen 
                            Recognition Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2016

   Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California (for herself and Mr. McKinley) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing support for the designation of Journeymen Linemen 
                            Recognition Day.

Whereas journeymen linemen provide a vital service on a daily basis;
Whereas journeymen linemen put their lives on the line every day to assure safe 
        and reliable power for the American people;
Whereas journeymen linemen work at heights and in close proximity to energized 
        electric lines, and in emergencies they often work extremely long hours 
        under sometimes dangerous conditions to restore power;
Whereas Henry Miller, the first elected president of the International 
        Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was killed on July 10, 1896, at just 
        38 years old;
Whereas Henry Miller died of injuries sustained while troubleshooting an 
        electrical outage; and
Whereas there should be a day to honor those industry first responders who have 
        given their lives in the line of duty along with those who provide 
        skillful service in times of local or national crisis: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of Journeymen Linemen 
        Recognition Day;
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of the 
        countless individuals who often place themselves in harm's way 
        to serve their communities; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Journeymen Linemen Recognition Day with appropriate reflection.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wilbert GRIMES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12530.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 5, 1958.

Leonard Geb, Ponca City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the county court of Kay County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, tried before a jury, found guilty and sentenced to serve a sentence of 10 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $1.00. The facts reveal that two highway patrolmen were stationed in a patrol car on the southwest corner of Waverly and South Avenue in Ponca City. They observed defendant’s car approaching from the south, as it ran across the highway, ran off on the west side of the roadway and then back onto the highway and continued in a northerly direction after having run through a ditch. The patrolmen made immediate pursuit, stopped the defendant, and were definite in their testimony that defendant was intoxicated. The defendant and witnesses for him testified he was not drunk. That he had in the course of five or six hours visited three different beer taverns and had consumed three bottles of beer. They denied any erratic driving and stated the patrolmen stopped defendant while he was driving normally. There was a drastic conflict in the testimony as to defendant’s sobriety and also his improper driving.

This appeal was lodged in this court on August 31, 1957. The time for filing briefs has long since expired. The case was set for oral argument on December 4, 1957. No one appeared on behalf of defendant. This court has consistently held that where no briefs are filed and no appearances made, the record will be thoroughly examined and in the absence of fundamental error the verdict will not be disturbed. Such is the case here. The conflict in the *testimony*was a matter to be determined by the jury. The evidence on the part of the state was *713sufficient if believed to justify the verdict. We have carefully examined the record and find no material error to justify reversal. The case is therefore affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
# C_2019016EN.01005201.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/52

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

(Case T-643/18)

(2019/C 16/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DermoFaes — Application for registration No 15 069 289

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 in Case R 1842/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition and reject the contested application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2018373EN.01000701.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 16 July 2018 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-459/18)

(2018/C 373/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national tax legislation pursuant to which, for the purpose of calculating the taxable profits of a company subject to full tax liability in Belgium which has a permanent establishment in another Member State, the profits of which are wholly exempt in Belgium by virtue of the application of a double taxation convention between Belgium and the other Member State:

| — | the deduction for risk capital is reduced by an amount in respect of deduction for risk capital calculated with reference to the positive difference between, on the one hand, the net book value of the assets of the permanent establishment, and, on the other hand, the total liabilities that do not form part of the company’s equity capital and that are attributable to the permanent establishment and |
| --- | --- |

—

the deduction for risk capital is reduced by an amount in respect of deduction for risk capital calculated with reference to the positive difference between, on the one hand, the net book value of the assets of the permanent establishment, and, on the other hand, the total liabilities that do not form part of the company’s equity capital and that are attributable to the permanent establishment and

| — | the aforementioned reduction is not applied in so far as the amount of the reduction is lower than the profits of that permanent establishment, |
| --- | --- |

—

the aforementioned reduction is not applied in so far as the amount of the reduction is lower than the profits of that permanent establishment,

whereas no reduction of the deduction for risk capital is applied if that positive difference can be attributed to a permanent establishment located in Belgium?

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CORTEZ-VILLANUEVA, also known as Jose Luis Hernandez-Cortez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41193

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 3, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Cortez-Villanueva (“Cortez”) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. We pretermit discussion of the validity of his appeal waiver because, for the reasons discussed below, Cortez is not entitled to relief.

Cortez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Cortez’s argument concerning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is, as he concedes, foreclosed. *See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523*U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); *United States v. Izaguirre-Flores,*405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1786638 (July 22, 2005) (No. 05-5469).

Cortez also argues for the first time in a supplemental brief that the district court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory Guideline regime held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review this argument for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2005). Our review of the record does not reveal that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the sentencing proceedings. *See id.*at 600-01. Therefore, Cortez has failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights and he consequently cannot meet the plain error standard of review. *Id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2020019EN.01004602.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

(Case T-643/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DermoFaes - Earlier EU word mark Dermowas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 (Case R 1842/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---
# C_2018142EN.01005201.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/52

---

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

(Case T-41/18)

(2018/C 142/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (represented by: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls;

| — | in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal). |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that inconsistent application of EU legislation in relation to the importation of frozen and refrigerated fishery products from non-EU countries has skewed competition rules and the level playing field, leading to a distortion of the internal market.

In that regard, it also submits that ports play a key role in freight transportation and, more specifically, in relation to imports of fishery products, 76 % of which enter through ports.

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ MSI AVIATION, 

Complainant, 

v. 

SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT 

BOARD, 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CPR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to August 18,2014. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall 

~//rz:_ S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on AprilLJ, 2014, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (frrst class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

August 18,2014 for FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Konrad Kuczak 

130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Rachel Owsley 

Bethany A. Breetz 

Stites & Harbison, PLLC 

400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 

Louisville, KY 40202 

Hand delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

~~ Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Independent Auditors' Consent

The
Board of Directors
Williams Controls, Inc:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-42232, 333-43006, 333-59397, and 333-90565, on
Form S-3 and No. 333-56591 on Form S-8) of Williams Controls, Inc of our report dated December 20, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of Williams Controls, Inc as of September 30, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), cash flows, and
comprehensive income for the year-ended September 30, 2002, which report appears in the September 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Williams
Controls, Inc.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Portland,
Oregon
December 20, 2002

---

QuickLinks
# C_2019305EN.01005001.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)

(Case T-268/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Luciano Sandrone - Earlier EU word mark DON LUCIANO - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Application for an EU word mark consisting of a first name and of a surname - Earlier mark consisting of an honorific title and a first name - Neutrality of the conceptual comparison - No likelihood of confusion)

(2019/C 305/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Sandrone (Barolo, Italy) (represented by: A. Borra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1207/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between J. García Carrión and Luciano Sandrone.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1207/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1207/2017-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Luciano Sandrone. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Luciano Sandrone.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


[FIRST/SECOND] AMENDMENT TO
[AMENDED AND RESTATED]
DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT is made this ____ day of December, 2016 by and between The Connecticut Water Company (together with any affiliated companies hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Employer”), and _____________ (hereinafter referred to as the “Employee”).
Witnesseth:
WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee entered into an [Amended and Restated] Deferred Compensation Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated _________ __, 20__; and
WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee reserved the right to amend said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement to suspend deferrals under the Agreement after 2016;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective as of January 1, 2017:
1.    No elections may be made under this Agreement to defer salary earned after 2016. Any elections made prior to this Amendment to defer salary earned in 2017 or later shall be void.
2.    Any amounts payable under the Agreement prior to this Amendment will remain subject to the terms of the Agreement, including but not limited to the time and form of payment specified in the Agreement.
3.    The following new sentence is added to the end of Section 1 of the Agreement: “Effective January 1, 2017, no elections may be made under this Agreement to defer salary earned after 2016.”
4.    Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this [First/Second] Amendment to be duly executed.
	
		
	Employee
	The Connecticut Water Company

	__________________________________________
	By:  _______________________________________

	Date:  _____________________________________
	Date:  ______________________________________