alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010148EN.01002801.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2010 — Italy v Commission

(Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08) (1)

1

(EAGF - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGF - Sums recoverable from the Italian Republic where there is non-recovery within the time-limits specified - Meaning of financial consequences - Receipt of interest - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005)

2010/C 148/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, in Case T-274/08, for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/396/EC of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year (OJ 2008 L 139, p. 33) in so far as it includes interest on the sums charged to the budget of the Italian State under Article 32(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), and, in Case T-275/08, for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/394/EC of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany, Italy and Slovakia concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2008 L 139, p. 22) in so far as it includes interest on the sums charged to the budget of the Italian State under Article 32(5) of Regulation No 1290/2005.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08 for the purposes of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08 for the purposes of judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : PIETRO PASQUALE A NTONIO SGROMO,

Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 107

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19

-

cv

- 00060

- JRG

- RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States Distric t Court for

the Eastern District of Texas to reverse its dismissal of the

case and grant injuncti ve and other relief

. Mr. Sgromo filed a complaint in the district court , alleging , inter alia, infringement of two patents and one

trademark . On September 2 5 , 2019

, the district court entered judgment dismissing the case. On October 23, 2019, Mr. Sgromo file d this petition in the district court

. Mandamus is not available to Mr. Sgromo because he

could have obtained review of the district court’s decision Case: 20-107 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2020I N RE : S GROMO 2

through direct appeal. See In re Pollitz , 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) ( “[ M ] andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal.”). However, we may construe a petition as a notice of appeal if filed within the filing deadline.

Those are the circumstances here. We therefore construe the petition as a timely notice of appeal and direct the clerk

to docket the appeal in the usual course.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal.

F OR THE C OURT

Jan uary 31 , 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s28 Case: 20-107 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2020
# C_2008247EN.01002002.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/20

---

Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)

(Case T-298/08)

(2008/C 247/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2008 (Case No R 1301/2007-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2008 (Case No R 1301/2007-1);

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 35, 38, and 39 (application No 3 360 914).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 38 (Mark No 2 262 920), the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 39 (Mark No 2 262 921) and the international word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Classes 37, 38, 39 and 42 (Mark No 789 344), opposition being filed to registration for services in Class 38.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

Plea in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 0f 20 December 1991 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 12, 2018

p1009 

# Order

Clerk October 12, 2018

157891 & (50)(53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157891

COA: 335396

Oakland CC: 2015

- 256959

- FC

ROBERT DAREN HALE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add new grounds is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2018 judgme nt 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. The motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 8013** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NORVEL LEE WOODSON, a/k/a Woody , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr
- 00191

- 1 )

Submitted : May 26 , 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Norvel Lee Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Norvel Lee Woodson appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Woodson , No. 5:09

- cr
- 00191

- 1 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 10, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and a rgument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2009044EN.01007803.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/78

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission

(Case F-23/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 44/143)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 33.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 90219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28739]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 154 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-137, CP2024-143.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28739 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
• Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. Gibbons

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

2
#### People v James W. Crossley, Defendant.

— Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: In moving for permission to file and serve a late notice of appeal *(see,*CPL 460.30), defendant alleges that the failure to file the notice timely was due to improper conduct of his trial counsel, who failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Defense counsel has provided us with a copy of a written form complying with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a), which he gave to defendant immediately after sentencing, advising defendant of his right to appeal. On the copy of the form signed by defendant, defendant indicated that he did not wish to take an appeal. This documentary evidence refutes defendant’s allegation of improper conduct of defense counsel. Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Upton MORRIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12807.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 6, 1959.

O. A. Brewer, Hugo, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Upton Morris was charged by information filed in the County Court of Choctaw County with the crime of lewdness, was tried before a jury and convicted. His punishment was fixed at sixty days confinement in the county jail.

The petition in error and case-made were filed in this Court on Augusl 10, 1959. A brief was due twenty days thereafter, but on September 16, 1959 plaintiff in error was given thirty days additional *547time in which to file brief. Thereafter, on October 28, 1959 the case came on for oral argument. No one appeared to argue the case, and to date brief has not been filed.

We have examined the record for fundamental error, and none appears therein. The defendant was involved in sexual orgies with a young boy. The jury was extremely lenient.

Under the record the case must be, and is affirmed. Patterson v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 252, 261 P.2d 903, and cases cited.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
# Appendix D

File Locations for Additional Documentation on Inventory Development ProcessD - 1 All 2007, 2017 and 2025 TSD files are stored on MARAMA ftp site:

Address: ftp.marama.org Login ID: regionalei Password: marama2007

Pertinent files that include growth factors, co ntrol factors and summary emission data can be found in the following directories:
\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2007 (Version 3_3)\TSD \MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2017 2020 (Version 3_3)\TSD \2025/Final 2025 (Version 3_3)
# C_2009032EN.01001101.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-330/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - Prevention and remedying of environmental damage - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 32/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendants: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Nunez, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.), rendered July 11, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that the concurrent prison sentences he received of 2 to 6 years upon his plea of guilty were harsh and excessive. The sentences were well within the statutory limits (Penal Law § 70.00 [2], [3]) and were imposed in accordance with the plea-bargain agreement. Other charges were also dismissed as a result of his pleading guilty. Under these circumstances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant *(see, People v Mackey,*136 AD2d 780, *lv denied*71 NY2d 899; *People v Du Bray,*76 AD2d 976).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2008142EN.01003501.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/35

---

Action brought on 14 April 2008 — Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KINDERJOGHURT)

(Case T-140/08)

(2008/C 142/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: C. Gielen, lawyer, and F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tirol Milch rGmbH (Innsbruck, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2008 in case R 628/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2008 in case R 628/2007-2; and

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A word mark consisting of the words ‘TiMi KINDERJOGHURT’ for goods in class 29 — application No 792 978

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Tirol Milch reg. Gen. mbH

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Invalidity of the challenged trade mark

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and dismissal of the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Second Board of Appeal erred in establishing that the previous final decisions between the same parties and concerning the same trade mark are binding in the subsequent action for invalidity before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the challenged trade mark is similar to an earlier trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4915]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1200
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker at noon.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                VOICE OF TEXAS, KELLY FROM CROSBY, TEXAS

  (Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Texans have shared with me their 
stories about the businesses that they have built without the help of 
the Federal Government.
  Kelly from Crosby, Texas, wrote me this:

       Congressman, you are correct that small business owners 
     carry the full load of government taxes.
       On average, our small $3 million-a-year business pays 35 
     percent in Federal taxes, pays Social Security of 7.45 
     percent, Federal unemployment tax, State franchise tax, 
     school district and real estate property taxes, and I am 
     taxed on the computer used to send this email to you. And the 
     President says I didn't build it? I beg to differ. During the 
     first 3 years, my workweek was 80 hours a week. If the 
     Federal Government's debt of $16 trillion is not brought 
     under control, it will not matter how hard I work, because 
     the dollar's value will be worthless.
       Federal Government, fix your spending problem, and put your 
     House in order because small business is watching and 
     thinking, If I ran my business like you run yours, the bank 
     would foreclose.

  Mr. Speaker, Kelly is correct. Big Government hasn't built America. 
American small business owners have built it--on their own.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Klem, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove ownership and value of the stolen vehicle. The record reveals that the vehicle was stolen from a lessee who had a superior right to possession *(see,*Penal Law § 155.00 [5]; *People v Hutchinson,*56 NY2d 868) and that the original price for the vehicle was at least $22,000, the vehicle had been used for only a month and a half and was in excellent physical condition when stolen, thus indicating a value well in excess of $3,000 *(see, People v Ruiz,*159 AD2d 656, *lv denied*76 NY2d 742; *People v Miller,*156 AD2d 265, *lv denied*75 NY2d 922; *People v James,*111 AD2d 254, *affd*67 NY2d 662). We have conducted an independent review of the record and conclude that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

The remaining issue was not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Lipton,*54 NY2d 340, 351), and in any event, is without merit *(see, People v Hazlett,*167 AD2d 867, *lv denied*77 NY2d 878). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Kepner, J. — Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 3rd Degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.