alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008183EN.01003301.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/33

---

Action brought on 18 March 2008 — Carvalhal Garcia v Council

(Case F-40/08)

(2008/C 183/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Carvalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented by: F. Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Council's decision refusing to grant the education allowance for the applicant's daughter

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the final decision of the Council of the European Union's head of personnel of 16 November 2007 and rule that it must be replaced by a separate decision granting the education allowance for the applicant's daughter with regard to the 2006/2007 school year |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the final decision of the Council of the European Union's head of personnel of 16 November 2007 and rule that it must be replaced by a separate decision granting the education allowance for the applicant's daughter with regard to the 2006/2007 school year

---
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 23.01



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Partnership Policy Committee
Northern Border Partners, L.P.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-101469) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-66949 and File No.
72696) of our report dated January 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of Northern Border Partners, L.P. and Subsidiaries (the
Partnership) as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flows, and changes in partners'
equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003
included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts"
in the prospectus.

Our report refers to the Partnership's adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
in 2003 and adoption of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangibles in 2002.

                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 12, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. IAN MCDONALD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cr-00146-WDQ-1; 1:08-cv-02091-WDQ-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ian McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDonald has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2008327EN.01004401.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/44

---

Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Vandeuren v European Training Foundation

(Case F-88/08)

(2008/C 327/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Monique Vandeuren (Pino Torinese, Italy) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Training Foundation

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant's decision to dismiss the applicant, and declaration that the European Training Foundation be ordered to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 23 October 2007 to dismiss the applicant adopted by the European Training Foundation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 October 2007 to dismiss the applicant adopted by the European Training Foundation;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the explicit decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the explicit decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 125 000 by way of material damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 125 000 by way of material damages;

| — | order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 50 000 by way of non-material damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 50 000 by way of non-material damages;

| — | order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,880
<INVENTORY>                                      1,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              197
<BONDS>                                         29,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,943
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                          3,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,649
<CGS>                                            2,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,731
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (456)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Mark L. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer of Polar Molecular Holding Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Polar Molecular Holding Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement 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 financialinformation 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 forestablishing 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

(a) allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 29, 2004
AFS-10-144-E 

March 12, 2010 

 Exemption No. 8333C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15381 

E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. 

Counsel for Amerijet International, Inc. 

Hogan & Hartson, LLP 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Mr. Ellett: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8333, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 28, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Amerijet International, Inc. (Amerijet), for an extension of Exemption No. 8333, 

as amended. That exemption from § 91.303(f) and 91.307(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Amerijet to operate a specially modified Boeing 727 aircraft 

(B-727) under 14 CFR part 121 on behalf of the Zero Gravity Corporation in parabolic flight 

operations (1) when the flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles and (2) without each 

occupant of the aircraft wearing an approved parachute when the pilot executes an intentional 

maneuver that exceeds a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Amerijet. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8333, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, to 

May 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8333. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
#### Irwin Steltzer, Respondent, v Matthew Eason, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

— In an action for the partition of real property, the defendant Matthew Eason appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered December 11, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs motion to modify an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1989, by adding a provision thereto, *inter alia,*directing him to vacate the subject premises upon its sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The subject of this partition action is a nine-unit, rent-stabilized apartment building located in Brooklyn, New York. By agreement dated March 26, 1980, the plaintiff Irwin Steltzer agreed to convey a one-half interest in the subject premises to one of the building’s tenants, the appellant Matthew Eason. As consideration for the conveyance, the appellant agreed to continue to pay a monthly rental for his apartment, and to manage the subject premises without additional compensation.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, upon acquiring a one-half ownership interest in the premises, he ceased to be a tenant entitled to the protection of the Rent Stabilization Code *(see,*9 NYCRR 2520.6 [d]; *Henry v Green,*126 Misc 2d 360). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellant’s right to occupy the subject premises must terminate upon the partition sale. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Byron Webb, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Webb Mortgage
Depot, 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. I am 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 changes in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

      5. 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):

<PAGE>

      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: November 10, 2005.

                               /s/ Byron Webb
                              -----------------------------------------
                              Name: Byron Webb
                              Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                     And Chief Accounting Officer
# C_2010011EN.01002602.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD)

(Case T-473/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark THINKING AHEAD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 11/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Apollo Group Inc. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States) (represented by: A. Link and A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2008 (Case R 728/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign THINKING AHEAD as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Apollo Group, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apollo Group, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6500

JOSEPH ALSTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00277)

Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Alston has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Prentiss - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District Executive Director Sharon Gardner Email &#115;&#103;&#x61;&#x72;&#100;&#110;&#x65;&#x72;&#64;&#110;&#x65;&#x6d;&#112;&#100;&#x64;&#x2e;&#99;&#111;&#x6d;The post Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM
– Schwarzbräu (Alaska)**

**(Case T-226/08)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Alaska – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 36, 38)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004‐4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: | Word mark Alaska for goods in Class 32 – Community trade mark No 505503 |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark: | Schwarzbräu GmbH |
| Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: | Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned granted in part |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Schwarzbräu GmbH to bear its own costs. |