alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008223EN.01004901.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/49

---

Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Asenbaum Fine Arts v OHIM (WIENER WERKSTÄTTE)

(Case T-231/08)

(2008/C 223/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Asenbaum Fine Arts Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Vögel, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 10 April 2008 (R 1571/2006-4) so as to allow the applicant's appeal of 29 November 2006 in its entirety;
  In the alternative annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to complete the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 10 April 2008 (R 1571/2006-4) so as to allow the applicant's appeal of 29 November 2006 in its entirety;

In the alternative annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to complete the proceedings;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘WIENER WERKSTÄTTE’ for goods in Class 14 (Application No 4 207 783).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2008272EN.01003403.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/34

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescazzurra v Commission

(Case T-316/08)

(2008/C 272/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pescazzurra Srl (Messina, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. GIBSON:
        H.R. 6373.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clause 3 and 4, of Section 8, of Article I.
```
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Nicole Josette Romosz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2010

Filed: May 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nicole Romosz directly appeals after she was sentenced in the district court1

upon her unconditional guilty plea to sexual contact with a ward. After considering

the statutory sentencing factors as applied to Romosz’s particular circumstances--

including her family responsibilities and history of depression, the likelihood she

would lose her nursing license, and the “significant punishment” of having to register

as a sex offender--the court sentenced Romosz to three years of probation and 60
-2-

hours of community service. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Romosz should not

have been convicted, or should have been allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense

that did not require registration as a sex offender.

We hold that counsel’s arguments, which are nonjurisdictional and essentially

challenge the prosecution of the case, are foreclosed by Romosz’s unconditional guilty

plea. See United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994) (unconditional

guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional challenges to prosecution of case). We further

hold that the district court did not commit any procedural error or abuse its discretion

by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007) (assuming sentencing decision is procedurally sound, appellate court considers

substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United

States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence was not unreasonable

where record reflected that district court made individualized assessment based on

facts presented and specifically addressed defendant’s proffered information in its

consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010); United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (holding that

reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural

error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence; describing factors

demonstrating procedural error).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    WE WILL STAND AGAINST TERRORISM

  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join in asking for calm, 
along with Secretary Clinton, in this violent and tumultuous world, and 
particularly with regard to the actions that are going on in Yemen, 
Cairo, and certainly Libya. I offer my deepest sympathy to those who 
lost their lives.
  I stand again to say, as the Secretary indicated this morning, that 
the American people and the American Government had absolutely nothing 
to do with this heinous film, but we reject the horrible and horrific 
violence.
  I am also saddened to hear that resources probably prevented some of 
the reinforcing of some of our Embassies. We cannot shortchange the 
securing of the homeland, and as we go forward in dealing with 
sequestration, I beg that we understand that we must protect those who 
serve us overseas, including the United States military.
  But I call for peace. I know the American people realize that no 
religion should be denigrated, but we cannot accept and will not accept 
and will stand against any violence against the American people or 
those who serve us in a civilian manner with honor and dignity.
  To their families, I offer my deepest sympathy and a commitment that 
we will stand against terrorism.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alliance Bancshares California (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel L. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, 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.

 

 

Date: May 16, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2.****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas P. Reed, Vice President of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:               (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and               (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.         /s/ Thomas P. Reed           Thomas P. Reed      (chief financial officer)      November 9, 2007
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 Asyst Technologies, Inc.
Compensation Program for Non-employee Directors
 Program Element
    
    DescriptionSign-on
stock award to new directors for continuing service
    
    Stock award in conjunction with continued service    $120,000 value at award, vesting over 3 years from the date of award  
value determined by the trading price of the Companys Common Stock at the date of award  
shares subject to such award may not  be sold until after the recipient has ceased to be a board memberBoard member  annual cash retainer
    
    $35,000Board member  per meeting fees
    
    $2,000 in person, or $1,000 if by
telephone (when such meeting is as the Board)No incremental meeting fees for the Board chair (if a non-executive chair)Committee member  annual cash retainer Audit
    
     $5,000 Compensation
    
     $5,000 Governance and Nominating
    
     $5,000Committee member  per meeting fees
    
    $1,000 in person, or $500 if by
telephone (when such meeting is as a committee) No incremental meeting fees for the committee chair Audit Compensation Governance and Nominating Specially appointed committeesCommittee chair  annual cash retainer Audit
    
     Audit: $12,500 Compensation
    
     Compensation: $7,500 Governance and Nominating
    
     Governance: $7,500Additional committee fees
    
    $12,500 annual cash retainer for
designated Audit Committee Financial Expert (unless if also the committee chair)




---



##### 



Program Element
    
    DescriptionAnnual stock award to new and existing directors for continuing service
    
    Stock award in conjunction with continued service  
May 2006 award of 13,000 shares per director, vesting over 36 months
from the date of award  distribution of the shares subject to the
award is subject to a mandatory three-year deferral (until April 3,
2009), and further subject to a mandatory restriction on sale or
disposition of the shares over the same period.Subsidiary directors Non-management director  annual cash retainer
    
     $5,000 Non-management director  meeting fees
    
     No additional compensation(board, committee or project)Fees for special projects/meetings U.S.
    
    None (unless specifically approved)
$1,000 per day or $5,000 per assignment out of the country (as
determined by the Board) Outside U.S.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 31, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00780

- CV

M. Y. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JU STIC ES BAKER, SMITH, AND JONES

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the orde r terminating parental rights signed by the tr i a l court on

December 2, 2022

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds

that there was no reversible error in the order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

termin ati o n order

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
# C_2009044EN.01007401.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/74

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-64/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Article 35(1(e) of the Rules of Procedure - Summary statement in application of pleas in law - Staff reporting procedure - Designation of reporting officer and countersigning officer - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2009/C 44/130)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the European Court of Auditors designating the applicant's reporting officer and countersigning officer and application for compensation for damage suffered as a result of that decision

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247 of 27.9.2008, p. 25.

1

---
# C_2010080EN.01000501.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-18/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Article 1 - Maritime transport - Ports of general interest - Harbour dues - Exemptions and subsidies)

2010/C 80/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Infringement of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) — Ports of general interest — Subsidies and exemptions from harbour dues

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) of Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest, which establishes a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) of Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest, which establishes a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;

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

2.

orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
Exhibit
10.25




Husker
Ag, LLC

Named
Executive Officer Compensation




Allen H.
Sievertsen has been General Manager of the Husker Ag, LLC ("Company") ethanol
plant since August 10, 2001. On August 10, 2001, the Company entered into a
contract labor agreement with Mr. Sievertsen for $7,500 per month plus
reimbursement of expenses. On March 1, 2002, the Company converted Mr.
Sievertsen's position to a salaried position on substantially the same terms as
set forth in the contract labor agreement, and in connection with such
conversion, mutually agreed to terminate the contract labor agreement. As of
March 29, 2005, Mr. Sievertsen is compensated by the Company at a base salary,
on an annualized basis, of $110,000.
EXHIBIT
32.1








Certification
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tandy Leather Factory, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Jon Thompson, as President and Chief Executive Officer, and Shannon
L. Greene, as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


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











March
      26, 2010
            By:
      /s/ Jon ThompsonJon
      ThompsonChief
      Executive Officer and PresidentMarch
      26, 2010
            By:
      /s/ Shannon L.
  GreeneShannon
      L. GreeneChief
      Financial Officer and
Treasurer
#### George Parsons *v.*Alanson J. Shorey.

A writ, which has been served by attaching the defendant’s real estate, though no service was made on the defendant, cannot be used to commence a new action of later date between the same parties.

Assumpsit. The writ purported to be dated Sept. 14, 1858, and to have been served by attaching defendant’s real estate, January 14, •1869, and by service on defendant, January 16, 1869. The defendant seasonably at the first term moved to quash the writ, on the ground and for the reason, that an action had been commenced on this case on the first day of September, A. D., 1868, and that the same blank writ had then been used between the same parties, and the officer had attached the same real estate of the defendant on said first day of September, and that the same original writ was subsequently altered by inserting the aforesaid date of September 4, instead of September 1.

There was no service on the defendant upon the writ dated September 1, in either case.

The defendant alleged that the last officer’s return was made upon a piece of paper which was pasted upon the officer’s return as first made upon the original writ.

The court overruled the motion to quash in each case, to which the defendant excepted.

All questions within the discretion of the court at the trial term were reserved for the law term.

*Dudley dc- Parsons,*and *Aldrich,*for defendant.

Smith, J.,

An inspection of the writ and return sustains the allegagations of the defendant. *Gardner*v. *Webber,*16 Pick. 251, and *Parkman*v. *Crosby,*16 Pick. 297, are decisions favorable to the plaintiff, but they are based in some degree upon the long established course of practice in Massachusetts, and are not entitled to deserve weight here where no such practice has existed. Upon examining *Gardner*v. *Webber,*it will be found that upon another point than the one here in controversy it is directly opposed by a later decision in this State; see *Eastman*v. *Morrison,*46 N. H. 136. We think that in this State a writ which has been used to make an attachment of real estate must be regarded as having been so far “served” that it cannot be used again for a new action between the same parties. The writ in such case has been used to the plaintiff's advantage and, perhaps to the defendant’s detriment. The decisions in this State (6 N. H. 44; 15 N. H. 29, p. 37; 46 N. H. 136), may be somewhat strict, but they are founded on a laudable desire to prohibit any practice which would “ tend to give to the process and files of the court an unseemly and slovenly appearance,” or to deprive the clerks of their legal fees ; and it does not seem advisable to depart from the principles already established. In accordance with the spirit of those decisions, though without imputing any intentional wrong to the plaintiff’s counsel, the exception must be sustained, and the

*Motion to quash granted.*
# Wythe - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Mount Rogers Planning District Commission Executive Director Aaron Sizemore Email &#97;&#x73;&#105;&#x7a;&#101;&#x6d;&#111;&#x72;&#101;&#x40;&#109;&#x72;&#112;&#x64;&#99;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post Mount Rogers Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Arthur Lachman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York,

September 23, 1959.

*541
      *John T. Sullivan*for Gertrude L. Eberson and another.

*Samuel Segal*for Winifred Lachman.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S. In this contested probate proceeding a motion has been made for the examination of hospital records which relate to decedent’s hospitalization at the Bloomingdale Division of New York Hospital during the period of July and August, 1954. In such proceedings this court has long favored and granted broad examinations. *(Matter of Putnam,*257 N. Y. 140; *Matter of Reynolds,*166 Misc. 446, 447; *Matter of Young,*268 App. Div. 883.)

In the case at bar objection has been raised to such examination on the ground that the hospital whose records are sought to be examined is not a party to the proceeding and that the records in question are not under the control of the proponent. It is well known that the rules and regulations of hospitals and similar institutions do not permit the examination of records such as these without authorization by the decedent’s wife. It is the opinion of this court, therefore, that for the purposes of this proceeding the records sought to be examined are “ under the control ” of the proponent within the contemplation of section 324 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 140 of the Rules of Civil Practice. *(Matter of Rubin,*161 Misc. 374.) The court, therefore, directs the proponent to execute an authorization which wiU permit the contestants herein to inspect the hospital records. The examination of such records, however, is to proceed within the limits prescribed by section 354 of the Civil Practice Act. *(Matter of Ackerman,*163 Misc. 624.)

Submit order accordingly.