alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Douglas W. Whitney, Respondent, v Gary A. Stewart, Individually and as Ontario County Sheriff, et al., Appellants.

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants served plaintiff with a demand for service of the complaint on December 20, 1988. When plaintiff failed to serve a complaint by December 5, 1989, defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). Plaintiff, an attorney, then cross-moved for an extension of time in which to serve the complaint. We conclude that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in failing to serve a complaint and that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying the motion and granting plaintiff’s cross motion. There is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that his lengthy delay should be excused by reason of the relocation of plaintiff’s law office and consequent inattentiveness *(see, Manfreda v Kendall Agency,*57 AD2d 727; *Sinder v 345 Cypress Realty Corp.,*34 AD2d 777), or unsubstantiated allegations that emotional and psychological problems stemming from his arrest and subsequent trial *(see, Zolov v Donovan,*138 AD2d 484; *Caton v Schenectady Gazette,*82 AD2d 949), or his ambivalence regarding pursuit of the action *(see, Catón v Schenectady Gazette, supra),*or the illness of a lawyer he wished to retain as trial counsel. We note that some eight months elapsed between service of the demand for the complaint and the onset of the prospective trial attorney’s illness. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J. — Dismiss Action.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
# C_2021182EN.01000901.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, Hungary

(Case C-562/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Polish tax on the retail sector - Article 108(2) TFEU - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Information used to determine the reference system - Progressivity of rates - Existence of a selective advantage - Burden of proof)

(2021/C 182/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, P.-J. Loewenthal and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and M. Szydło, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
# C_2020390EN.01000901.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

(Case C-339/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Company law - Shares admitted to trading on the regulated market - Financial investment company - National regulations limiting the shareholding in certain financial investment companies - Statutory presumption of concerted action)

(2020/C 390/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA

Defendant: Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides for a 5 % limit on a shareholding in a financial investment company, if that measure is not justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
# C_2009141EN.01003505.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/35

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-369/08) (1)

1

2009/C 141/70

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50713

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS RICARDO ELIZALDE-LIRA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-841-1-H

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Ricardo Elizalde-Lira appeals his sentence following

his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Elizalde argues that his

sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Elizalde acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme

Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). 
No. 00-50713

- 2 -

Elizalde’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523

U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01013-CV

MICHAEL ALDOUS, Appellant

V.

ERIC BRUSS, SILVIA SANDOVAL, DEBBIE AND DALE O'CONNOR, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-CV-0824

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed October 30, 2012. No clerk’s record 

has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On November 30, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 
2

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1769]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Public 
Teleconference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
Teleconference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a 
teleconference of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 
Committee (COMSTAC). The teleconference will take place on Tuesday, 
February 15, 2011, starting at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 
Individuals who plan to participate should contact Susan Lender, DFO, 
(the Contact Person listed below) by phone or e-mail for the 
teleconference call in number.
    The proposed agenda for this teleconference is to continue the 
discussion started during the January 20, 2011, teleconference. This 
discussion concerns the structure of the COMSTAC working groups and the 
organization of the COMSTAC meetings themselves.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written 
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory 
process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned 
above or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. commercial 
space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to submit 
written statements should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the Contact 
Person listed below) in writing (mail or e-mail) by February 11, 2011, 
so that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members for 
their review and consideration before the February 157, 2011, 
teleconference. Written statements should be supplied in the following 
formats: One hard copy with original signature or one electronic copy 
via e-mail.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/go/ast.
    Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance 
should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lender (AST-100), Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8029; e-mail 
susan.lender@faa.gov. Complete information regarding COMSTAC is 
available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, January 21, 2011.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-1769 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FLOYD N. SIMMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-111, CA-95-268-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd N. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simms , Nos. CR-89-111; CA-95-268-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 3, 1995). We also deny Appellant's motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019131EN.01002001.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/20

---

Appeal brought on 5 December 2018 by Wallapop, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-186/17, Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case C-763/18 P)

(2019/C 131/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Wallapop, S.L. (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and N. Porxas Roig, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Unipreus, S.L.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, for the reasons set out in the single ground of appeal, finding that the services at issue are not similar; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal, for the reasons set out in the single ground of appeal, finding that the services at issue are not similar;

| — | order Unipreus to pay the costs incurred by Wallapop, both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Unipreus to pay the costs incurred by Wallapop, both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Wallapop, S.L. is bringing an appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2018, delivered in Case T-186/17, (1) relating to opposition proceedings brought by the company Unipreus, S.L. in respect of Wallapop, S.L.‘s application for EU figurative mark No 13268941.

The appeal is based on a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (2) (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark) and the case-law that interprets the assessment of similarity between services.

In particular, the ground of appeal is based on the General Court’s erroneous application of the criteria established in the case-law for determining the similarity in terms of application as between trade marks; in essence, the General Court disregarded the concept of marketing and the services that an online market ordinarily provides, according to the meaning attributed to it by legislation and case-law; that is to say, intermediary services rather than marketing or similar services.

The General Court’s incorrect assessment carries forward to the analysis in its judgment of the similarity of the services at issue, applying the criteria established in the case-law to that effect (such as nature, distribution channels, intended purpose and perception or competitiveness and complementarity between services).

---

(1)  Judgment of 3 October 2018, Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop) (T-186/17, not published, EU:T:2018:640).

(2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>   1

          
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1
                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three Months                Nine Months
                                                                            Ended                      Ended
                                                                      September 30, 1998         September 30, 1998
                                                                      ------------------         ------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>                        <C>
Net income                                                                    $  343,547                 $  380,164
                                                                              ==========                 ==========


Average shares outstanding                                                       560,318                    559,987
Basic earnings per share                                                      $      .61                 $      .68
                                                                              ==========                 ==========


Average shares outstanding                                                       560,318                    559,987
Dilutive average shares outstanding under
        warrants and options                                                     207,800                    207,800
Exercise price                                                                $    10.00                 $    10.00
Assumed proceeds on exercise                                                  $2,078,000                 $2,078,000
Average market value                                                          $    12.50                 $    12.50
Less:   Treasury stock purchased with assumed proceeds from
        exercise of warrants and options
                                                                                 166,240                    166,240
Adjusted average shares-diluted                                                  601,878                    601,547
Diluted earnings per share                                                    $      .57                 $      .63
                                                                              ==========                 ==========
</TABLE>


         The stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange. The
average market values are derived from trades known to management. Private
sales may occur where management of the Company is unaware of the sales price.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2015 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chua Leong Hin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, 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 complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.   The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

/s/ Chua Leong Hin

Chief Financial Officer

August 19, 2015
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR CoMMONWEALTH oF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HousE • BosToN, MA 02133 (617)**725~4000**

DEVALL PATRICK TIMOTHY P. MURRAY GOVERNOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
June22, 2012 Mr. Curt Spalding Regional Administrator EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912 Dear Mr. Spalding: I write to you to request that the Environmental Protection Agency nominate the former Walton and Lonsbury site, located in Attleboro, Massachusetts, for inclusion on the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. The serious nature ofthe contamination at this site warrants its inclusion on the National Priorities List. Our Department of Environmental Protection has been working with the City of Attleboro, affected community members, and state and federal representatives to help them understand the site and the benefits of adding the Walton and Lonsbury Site to the National Priorities List. We have had close cooperation with EPA staff in this effort, and look forward to continuing this coordinated effort to clean up this site. Thankyou foryourconsideration ofthis request. Sincerely,

® PRINTED ON Rr:CYCLED PArERMr. CurtSpalding June22, 2012 PageTwo

cc: JamesT. Owens Ill, DirectorOffice ofSite Remediation and Restoration, EPA New England Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., MASecretary Energy and Environmental Affairs Kenneth L. Kimmell, MACommissionerofDepartment of Environmental Protection
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

and Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Dennis Calvert, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed Amendment No. 1 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BioLargo, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

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

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 21, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Calvert     
|                   |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer