alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/2/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, Nos. 95-2052 95-2199 v. (D.C. No. CR-94-533-JP) VERONICA FRANCISCO, (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
The parties have agreed that this case may be submitt ed for decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that or al argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.2

Defendant Veronica Francisco pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing the district court found that Defendant’s sentence should be enhanced pursuant to the armed career offender statu te, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Defendant was sentenced to 180 months, and the court ordered the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence Ms. Francisco was serving for a parole violation in another case. Defendant now directly appeals her s entence by challenging the constitutionality of § 924(e).
Defendant was convicted in New Mexico of burglary in January 1981, and again in January 1982. In September 1988, Defendant was con victed in New Mexico of the offenses of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, and distribution of methamphetamine.
In April 1994, police executed a search warrant at De fendant’s residence. In the course of the search, police officers found quantit ies of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. A .32 caliber handgun was found in the ro om occupied by Ms. Francisco. A second .32 caliber handgun was found in an adjacent bedroom.
After being indicted, Defendant entered a guilty pl ea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to the statutory minimum of fifteen years. At3

sentencing, Defendant failed to challenge the const itutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Defendant appeals her sentence, raising the followin g issues: whether the mandatory sentence imposed violated the Separation of Powers Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, or Defendant’s due process rights. Defendant has waived these constitutional objections by failing to assert them before the district court. Therefore, we will not consider these issues because they were not properly raised in the first instance before the district court.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
# C_2018072EN.01004602.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/46

---

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

(Case T-7/18)

(2018/C 072/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: inforsacom Informationssysteme GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Business and technology working as one’ –Application for registration No 15 272 586

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 in Case R 808/2017-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

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.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Plum Pox

Last Modified: 

Print

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Archive,

Bugwood.org

Plum pox virus (PPV), also called Sharka, is the most devastating viral disease of

stone fruit worldwide. It affects Prunus spp., including peaches, nectarines, apricots,

plums, almonds, cherries, and some ornamental Prunus cultivars.
PPV infection weakens trees, severely reducing fruit production and marketability.

Aphids and people moving infected nursery stock spread the disease long distances.

The disease was first detected in North America in 1999. Twenty years later, APHIS

declared PPV eradicated from the United States.

What To Look For

Severely deformed fruit

Rings or spots on fruit skin or leaves

Brownish depressions and grooves on the surface of fruit

Premature fruit drop

Reddish or brownish colored flesh

Green peach aphids, small sap-sucking insects that carry the disease

It may take several years for symptoms to appear. If you suspect your plants are

infected, contact your State department of agriculture or State plant health director.

The only way to confirm PPV is to test suspect plant material using a specialized

molecular diagnostic test.

How to Prevent This Disease

PPV prevention measures include early detection field surveys and the use of

certified nursery stock.

How It Is Treated

There is no cure for PPV. Control measures include using resistant varieties (when

available), controlling aphids, eliminating infected trees, and enforcing domestic and

international quarantine regulations.

Report Plant Pests and Diseases
Have you seen this pest or signs of pest damage? Immediately report your findings.

Find your State plant regulatory official

Find your State plant health director

Controlling Plum Pox

Current Status

The United States has been plum pox free since 2019, and we're looking to keep it

that way. To spearhead prevention efforts, APHIS has implemented a strong

safeguarding program, that includes:

Monitoring for the disease in stone fruit-producing States

Science-based import regulations to prevent the disease’s reentry via imported

trees and propagative material

Continued cooperation with Canada to help prevent virus incursions

Regulatory Information

Federal Regulations 7 CFR 301.74

When a quarantine is in place, the United States regulates trees, seedlings, root

stock, budwood, branches, twigs, and leaves of host Prunus spp. but not seeds

or fruit. If a seed-borne strain of PPV emerges, APHIS will revisit the list of PPV

regulated articles.

Regulated Areas

Regulated Articles
# C_2019328EN.01005502.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/55

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy v Commission

(Case T-674/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - 16th Law amending the Law on Nuclear Energy (Atomgesetz) - Implementation of a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) - Companies operating nuclear power stations - Cessation of operation - Financial compensation for the amounts of electricity not generated - Letter from the Commission - No requirement for formal notification under Article 108(3) TFEU - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 328/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and R. Sangi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 4 July 2018, signed by the Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Competition and addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application of the Federal Republic of Germany for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application of the Federal Republic of Germany for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Federal Republic of Germany, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Federal Republic of Germany, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001053 13-JUN-2017 01:16 PM

SCWC-14-0001053 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. TANNER KEAWE AYAU, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0001053; CASE NO. 3DTC-14-050186) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii’s application for writ of certiorari filed on May 10, 2017, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, June 13, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                       1,684,815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,007,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 70,045,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            90,269,064
<PP&E>                                      21,879,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,465,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       79,578,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,303
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,295,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,465,887
<SALES>                                     78,152,339
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,152,339
<CGS>                                       46,834,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,836,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            33,036,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,044,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,044,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,044,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019004EN.01003801.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/38

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)

(Case T-649/18)

(2019/C 4/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark transparent pairing — Application for registration No 16 581 118

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 2487/2017-2

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.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to state reasons in the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to state reasons in the contested decision;

| — | Incorrect substantive interpretation of the sign applied for. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect substantive interpretation of the sign applied for.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORMS 10-K, 10-KA AND
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880229
<NAME> CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                       635
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,951
<PP&E>                                          17,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,699
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                         485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,696
<SALES>                                          8,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,071
<CGS>                                            1,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,773)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,773)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019413EN.01004901.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Volvo Trademark v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (V V-WHEELS)

(Case T-356/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark V V-WHEELS - Earlier EU, national and unregistered figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 413/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1852/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding and Paalupaikka.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1852/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1852/2017-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, D. Geoffrey Shulman, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1)       The 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                         /s/ D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                         -----------------------
                                         D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                         (Principal Executive Officer), and
                                         Chief Financial Officer (Principal
                                         Financial Officer)

Date: August 12, 2003
June 19, 2002

23713

#### State v. Guthrie

Affirmed
August 2021 

There were 12 surveillance inspections conducted at 12 different sites for a total of 

12 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures remained steady in response to the warm air 

temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. Routine harvest continued. No cages were 

confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

September 2020 50 0 23336

October 2020 45 0 23381

November 2020 35 0 23416

December 2020 45 0 23461

January 2021 45 0 23506

February 2021 45 0 23551

March 2021 46 0 23597

April 2021 50 0 23647

May 2021 90 0 23737

June 2021 120 0 23857

July 2021 110 0 23967

August 2021 122 0 24089
# C_2019131EN.01004501.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Beko v EUIPO — Acer (ALTUS)

(Case T-162/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALTUS - Earlier national word marks ALTOS - Revocation proceedings in respect of earlier marks initiated before national authorities - Likelihood of confusion - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2019/C 131/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Tritton, Barrister)

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: Acer, Inc. (Taipei, Taiwan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1991/2016-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Acer and Beko.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1991/2016-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1991/2016-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beko plc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beko plc.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---