alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011013EN.01002303.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-113/08) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the production of olive oil - Aid for arable crop areas)

2011/C 13/44

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil and arable crop sectors

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 19, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00515

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.S., A CHILD

From the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA00518

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant V.S.’s motion for leave to file his brief late is GRANTED. Appellant V.S.’s

brief was filed on January 19, 2021

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. MACK:
       H.R. 6280.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 and Article 1, Section 8, 
     Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
```
# C_2008327EN.01002101.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/21

---

Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-466/08)

(2008/C 327/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and H. Støvlbæk)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC into domestic law expired on 20 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 255 of 30.9.2005.

1

---
#### Henry L. Austin, Plaintiff, *v.*Isidore I. Pober, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 20, 1959.

*Starhman & Fine*for plaintiff.

*Held, Telchin & Held*for defendant.

*559Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiff and defendant were traveling in the same westerly direction, and in a rainstorm. The plaintiff stopped his car abruptly when he discovered he had entered a deep puddle. The defendant’s car, which was following, struck the plaintiff’s in the rear. In the light of the defendant’s claim of an abrupt stop without warning, and the skidding of his car into the plaintiff’s, there is a triable issue of fact. *(Zwilling*v. *Harrison,*269 N. Y. 461; *Lahr*v. *Tirrill,*274 N. Y. 112.)

Motion denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1220
                             JOBS AND TAXES

  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, the American people need a tax plan that 
will help grow the middle class and create jobs right here in the 
United States.
  The American people want jobs to take care of their families. Sadly, 
the Republicans are holding the tax breaks for 98 percent of Americans 
hostage so that they can prevent millionaires and billionaires from 
paying their fair share of taxes. The Bush tax cuts for the ultra rich 
have failed to create any new jobs. They must be allowed to expire. 
Instead of working together on a bipartisan tax plan to strengthen our 
economy, Republicans are pushing for a plan to balance the budget on 
the backs of seniors and the middle class and to end Medicare as we 
know it by turning it into a private voucher system.
  Congress must stop protecting billionaires at the expense of Medicare 
and the middle class. Let's work together. Let's work together on a 
bipartisan plan that will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans, that 
will protect Medicare and that will create jobs right here in the 
United States.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008183EN.01000902.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

(Case C-139/08)

(2008/C 183/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:

Applicants

| 1. | Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Karlsruhe |
| --- | --- |

1.

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Karlsruhe

| 2. | Staatsanwaltschaft Konstanz |
| --- | --- |

2.

Staatsanwaltschaft Konstanz

Defendant: Rafet Kqiku

Defendant

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex acquire, by virtue of the unilateral recognition by the Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis of those residence permits as equivalent to their uniform or national visas, directly the effect of a residence document allowing transit through the common area;

1

Or

are the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC to be interpreted as meaning that third-country nationals holding one of the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex unilaterally recognised by the Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis are exempt, for the purpose of transit through the common area, from the requirement to be in possession of a visa under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8.

1

---
# C_2008272EN.01001101.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria) lodged on 28 July 2008 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

(Case C-347/08)

(2008/C 272/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Feldkirch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse

Applicant:

Defendant: WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law (Paragraph 332 of the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Social Insurance Law, ASVG)), may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the social security institution is established, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law (Paragraph 332 of the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Social Insurance Law, ASVG)), may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the social security institution is established, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does that jurisdiction exist even if at the time of bringing the action the directly injured party is not permanently or ordinarily resident in the Member State in which the social security institution is established? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does that jurisdiction exist even if at the time of bringing the action the directly injured party is not permanently or ordinarily resident in the Member State in which the social security institution is established?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2020279EN.01001301.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

(Case C-684/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Use in the course of trade of a sign that is identical with or similar to another person’s trade mark for goods or services that are identical with or similar to those for which that mark is registered - Scope of the term ‘using’ - Advertisement placed on a website by order of a person operating in the course of trade and subsequently reproduced on other websites)

(2020/C 279/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: mk advokaten GbR

Defendant: MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a person operating in the course of trade that has arranged for an advertisement which infringes another person’s trade mark to be placed on a website is not using a sign which is identical with that trade mark where the operators of other websites reproduce that advertisement by placing it online, on their own initiative and in their own name, on other websites.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. BROWN of Florida:
       H.R. 6301.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section VIII, Clause 7. To establish Post 
     offices and Post roads.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered September 29, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

We find no merit to defendant’s contentions that his rights were violated when he was allowed to continue to proceed *pro*
      *956
      *se*at trial and when he was sentenced in absentia. Not only did County Court conduct a thorough inquiry and clearly advise defendant of the hazards of proceeding *pro se*at the time defendant made his application to do so, but the court continued to so advise defendant at various times during the course of the trial when his conduct suggested that he might be harming himself by continuing to proceed in his own defense *(see, People v Vivenzio, 62*NY2d 775; *People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10, 14, 17-18). At all times defendant unequivocally responded that he wanted to continue to proceed *pro se (see, People v Lee,*116 AD2d 590). Furthermore, defendant voluntarily lost his right to be present at sentencing when he refused to appear *(see, People v Corley,*67 NY2d 105, 109-110; *Matter of Root v Kapelman, 61*AD2d 131, 135, *lv denied*47 NY2d 706). defendant’s contention that he was confused as to the correct sentencing date is belied by the fact that he was advised of the date at the end of the trial *(see, People v Christopher R.,*135 AD2d 584, 584-585, *lv denied*70 NY2d 959). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and also find it lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Order filed, June 26, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 12

- 00374

- CV

____________
THREE THOUSAND AND N O/100 DOLLARS ($3,00 0.00) IN US CURRENCY , ET AL , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 66649



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 28, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

record h as not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order Stacy Thomas , the official court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  HONORING ELIZABETH AND HENRY SNIPES

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr . JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, the union of Elizabeth and Henry Snipes has blessed us with 
descendants that have helped to shape our nation; One such descendant 
being Mr. Maceo Snipes who was a World War II veteran; and
  Whereas, their union produced many well respected citizens, today we 
honor all of the matriarchs and patriarchs, who are pillars of strength 
for the Snipes and Turner families; and
  Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we 
are honored to have many members of the Snipes and Turner families, 
whom are some of our most productive citizens in our District; and
  Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions 
in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the Snipes 
and Turner families have set aside this time to fellowship with each 
other, honor one another and to pass along history to each other by 
meeting at this year's family reunion in Atlanta, Georgia; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Snipes and Turner 
families;
  Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim, 
July 7, 2012 as Snipes and Turner Family Reunion Day in the Fourth 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 7th day of July, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                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 Temporary Financial Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Brad E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ BRAD E. HERR
----------------

Brad E. Herr

Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2004
# C_2011038EN.01001102.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Commission v Acentro Turismo

(Case T-460/08) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Contract for the provision of services concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips - Non-performance of the contract - Admissibility - Payment of principal sums due - Late payment interest)

2011/C 38/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Acentro Turismo (represented by: A. Carta and G. Murdolo, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application by the Commission under Article 153 EA for an order requiring the defendant to pay sums allegedly payable, plus late payment interest, by way of performance of the contract for provision of services 349-90-04 TL ISP I, concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips required by the Joint Research Centre

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 13 497,46, the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in late payment interest due at the date on which the application in the action was lodged and late payment interest on those amounts calculated in accordance with the rates in effect from 10 October 2008 until the date of full payment of the principal sum owing. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 13 497,46, the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in late payment interest due at the date on which the application in the action was lodged and late payment interest on those amounts calculated in accordance with the rates in effect from 10 October 2008 until the date of full payment of the principal sum owing.

| 2. | Orders Acentro Turismo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Acentro Turismo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
# C_2019016EN.01005601.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/56

---

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

(Case T-648/18)

(2019/C 16/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Super bock group, SGPS SA (Leça do Balio, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

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 Crystal — Application for registration No 15 016 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 in Case R 299/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods;

| — | order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

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

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00500-CR

Joe Ernest Robinson

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-1-10288

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 7, 2020
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00827

- CR

Jake Eric ALVARADO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 05

- 11973

- CR

Honorable Camile Glasscock Dubose, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTL E

, Clerk of Court