alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010063EN.01001801.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

---

Order of the Court of 26 November 2009 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain, Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council

(Case C-444/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility - Regional or local body - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

2010/C 63/26

Language of the case: English.

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Região autónoma dos Açores (represented by: M. Renouf and C. Bryant, Solicitors)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 in Case T-37/04 Região autónoma dos Açores v Council in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1) — Requirement that the contested measure must be of individual concern

Região autónoma dos Açores

Council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed

| 2. | The Região autónoma dos Açores shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Região autónoma dos Açores shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, of 20.12.2008.

1

---
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MURRAY COUNTY, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. 39420.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 27, 1961.

*268'G. Dixie Colbert, County Atty., Murray County, Sulphur, for plaintiff in error.

•Mac Q, Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst, Atty. Gen., L. G. Hy-den, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert Lynn, Gen. Counsel and Ed Armstrong, Asst.,'Courisel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in- error.

*269Otjen & Carter, by Frank Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error appeals from the same order of the State Board of Equalization that was appealed from in other cases decided June 13, 1961, including Cause No. 39,-321, Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma v. State Board of Equalization of State of Oklahoma, Okl., 363 P.2d 242. As to Murray County, here involved, the order required the same respective percentages of increase in valuations for rural and urban property that it required in the county involved in the cited case.

There is no material difference between the arguments advanced herein by plaintiff in error and those urged under three of the appellant’s propositions for reversal in Cause No. 39,321. We, therefore, apply what was therein said concerning those arguments, to the arguments of plaintiff in error herein, and adopt, by reference, those pronouncements as our opinion in this case.

Affirmed.

Due to the exigencies related to the element of time affecting the situation involved herein, the usual IS day period allowed by' this Court’s Rule No. 28 for the filing of petitions for rehearing generally, is, as applied to this case, reduced to 10 days.

WILLIAMS, C. J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Case No. 39,321, Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TERRANCE J. ZICH, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-5076

)

MARIO BAUTISTA-DIAZ and ANIBEXY )

MIRANDA; and CITIZENS PROPERTY )

INSURANCE CORPORATION, )

)

Appellees. )

)

Opinion filed March 13, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge.

David L. Ross of the Law Offices of David

L. Ross, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Jonathan D. Franklin of Franklin Legal 

Group, P.A., Miami, for Appellee Citizens 

Property Insurance Corporation.

No appearance for Appellees Mario

Bautista-Diaz and Anibexy Miranda.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding is converted to a petition for writ of certiorari. See 

Winderting Invs., LLC v. Furnell, 144 So. 3d 598, 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("An order 
- 2 -

compelling the production of documents by a nonparty is reviewable by certiorari 

because he or she has no adequate remedy by appeal.").

Denied. 

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Ryer, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J., at sentencing; Jeffrey M. Atlas, J., at suppression hearing), rendered October 14, 1987, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of *&V2*to 9 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

By order of this Court entered May 10, 1990 [161 AD2d 370], this matter was remanded to the Supreme Court, on consent of the People, for a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress a weapon recovered at the time of his arrest. Although originally scheduled to commence on June 6, 1990, the proceeding was delayed for six weeks, until July 24, 1990, at the People’s request. Testimony adduced by the People established that uniformed police officers observed defendant and a companion stalking a young woman in the Times Square area, and that when the officers attempted to make an inquiry, defendant fled. In the course of the ensuing chase, defendant threatened the officers with a revolver, which he then discarded, but which was recovered.

Defendant no longer contends that the seizure of the weapon was the result of unlawful police conduct. Instead, defendant now advances the theory that the several adjournments of the hearing, granted to the People, constituted an abuse of discretion on the part of the court necessitating a dismissal of the indictment. We find the delay herein to have been without prejudice to defendant. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                          QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998


<TABLE>
<S>                                                                   <C>       
Net income                                                            $   27,599
                                                                      ==========

Average shares outstanding                                               559,360

Basic earnings per share                                              $     0.05
                                                                      ==========

Average shares outstanding                                               559,360

Dilutive average shares outstanding under
  warrants and options                                                   218,988

Exercise price                                                        $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise                                          $2,189,880

Average market value                                                  $    12.50

Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed proceeds from
      exercise of warrants and options                                   175,190

Adjusted average shares - diluted                                        603,158

Diluted earnings per share                                            $     0.05
                                                                      ==========
</TABLE>

         The stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange. The
average market value is derived from trades known to management. Private sales
may occur where management of the Company is unaware of the sales price.
# C_2020378EN.01001201.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

(Case C-356/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Compensation procedure - Claim expressed in national currency - National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)

(2020/C 378/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights have been cancelled or subject to a long delay or their legal successors may demand payment of the amount of the compensation referred to in that provision in the national currency of their place of residence, so that that provision precludes a Member State’s legislation or case-law which results in the dismissal of an action brought for that purpose by such passengers or their legal successors on the sole ground that the claim was expressed in that national currency.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert W. Benson, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of ProCyte Corporation;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)        Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based upon such evaluations; and

 

c)         Disclosed in the reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information ; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  March 30, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Robert W. Benson                       |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   | Robert W. Benson, Chief Financial Officer, |
|                                 |   | ProCyte Corporation                        |

 

1

----
#### Fishman, Appellant, *v.*Brown.

*Partnership*— Bill *in equity for an accounting*— Exceptions — *Failure to specify any particular error*— Dismissal.

Exceptions to a partnership account were properly dismissed where they were vague and indefinite and failed to specify any particular error or errors in the account. -

Argued Jan. 23,1919.

Appeal, No. 213, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1915, No. 2109, in Equity, dismissing exceptions to defendant’s account and confirming the account in case of David Fishman v. Morris Brown.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity praying for dissolution of a partnership, the appointment of a receiver, and for an accounting. Before Martin, P. J.

The court decreed a dissolution of the partnership and directed the defendant to file an account.

The court approved and confirmed the account and dismissed plaintiff’s exceptions thereto. Plaintiff appealed.

*Errors assigned*were dismissing exceptions to the account and the decree of the court.

*Edward Tolen,*for appellant.

*Bertram D. Beariok,*for appellee, was not heard.

February 17, 1919:

Per Curiam,

This appeal by the plaintiff below is from the dismissal of his exceptions to the partnership account filed by the defendant. They were vague and indefinite, failing to specify any particular error or errors in the account, *26and nothing appears in either of the two assignments before ns directing our attention to any specific error that ought to be corrected. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, at appellant’s costs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

|Dated: September 4,
      2008 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM         
|------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                               | Steven D.
      Bonham       
|                               | Chief Financial
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
# C_2019054EN.01003001.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/30

---

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Brand IP Licensing v EUIPO — Facebook (lovebook)

(Case T-728/18)

(2019/C 54/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brand IP Licensing Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: J. MacKenzie, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark lovebook — Application for registration No 9 926 577

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 2279/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | set aside in its entirety the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 August 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 August 2017;

| — | dismiss the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition;

| — | award the costs in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---
18987

#### Raquinio v. Nakanelua

April 15, 1997

Order No. 97-31

Affirmed
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131780 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131780 

 COA: 260187 

Oakland CC: 03-192439-FC 

JEFFREY NORMAN MacINTOSH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
# C_2009256EN.01000701.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-527/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/65/EC - Transport policy - Port facility security - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 256/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.m |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.m

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---