alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010234EN.01003201.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Exalation v OHIM (Vektor-Lycopin)

(Case T-85/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Vektor-Lycopin - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 234/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Exalation Ltd (Ilford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2007 (Case R 1037/2007-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vektor-Lycopin 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 Exalation Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Exalation Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
# Tallapoosa - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Lori Hodge Sokol Email l&#111;&#x72;&#x69;&#x2e;s&#111;&#x6b;&#x6f;&#x6c;&#64;&#101;&#x61;&#x72;&#x70;d&#99;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;gThe post East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                 |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 28, 2007 |  | /s/ John Marlay
|                     |  | Name:           |  | John Marlay            
|                     |  | Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011311EN.01003801.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/38

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

(Case T-523/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA - Earlier national and Community figurative marks representing a black and white flower - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 311/67

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Arnold and C. Hicks, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1522/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
# C_2011160EN.01001601.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2011 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-465/08) (1)

1

(PHARE - ‘Revolving funds’ obtained by the Czech Republic - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Commission decision to offset - Legal basis - Distinct legal orders - Concept of being certain and of a fixed amount - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 160/19

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Dintilhac and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the amounts owed by the Czech Republic under the ‘revolving funds’ of the PHARE programme.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

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

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
# Chattooga - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Georgia Regional Commission Executive Director Boyd Austin Email &#98;&#x61;&#117;&#x73;&#116;&#x69;n&#x40;n&#x77;g&#114;&#x63;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post Northwest Georgia Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2009 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C‐422/08)**

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 prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC 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**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose 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 Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     HONORING GRAY'S GENERAL STORE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, since 1788, Gray's General Store has 
served customers in Rhode Island. For seven generations the Waite 
family has owned what is considered the oldest general store in the 
Nation. Gray's General Store closed its doors for the final time last 
Sunday.
  This store has been a cultural cornerstone for more than two 
centuries in Little Compton, a town in my district which itself was 
established in 1682.
  Since 1879, the Waite family has owned and operated Gray's General 
Store allowing generations of Rhode Islanders to have a place to share 
an ice cream and a laugh.
  Despite the tremendous loss the community will face, I extend my well 
wishes to the present owner, Jonah Waite, as he transitions into a new 
chapter of his life.
  I Honor Gray's General Store for its place in the history of Little 
Compton.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009205EN.01003701.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Melli Bank v Council

(Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Judicial review - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality - Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007)

2009/C 205/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by R. Gordon QC, J. Stratford and M. Hoskins, Barristers, R. Gwynne and T. Din, Solicitors, and subsequently by D. Anderson, QC, M. Hoskins, S. Gadhia, D. Murray and M. Din, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and L. Butel, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent, assisted by S. Lee, Barrister); and Commission of the European Communities (represented by S. Boelaert and P. Aalto, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application in Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08, for annulment of paragraph 4 of Table B of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29) in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc, and, in Case T-332/08, if necessary, a declaration that Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Melli Bank plc to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Melli Bank plc to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Voyager Petroleum, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sebastien C. Dufort, CEO and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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.



Date: October 6, 2008                       By: /s/ Sebastien C. Dufort
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Sebastien C. Dufort
                                               Principal Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 of Winmark Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report “), I, Anthony D. Ishaug, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Winmark Corporation and will be retained by Winmark Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

 
| Date:   March 10, 2011 | Signature: | /s/   Anthony D. Ishaug                 |
|-----------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                        |       | Anthony   D. Ishaug                     |
|                        |       | Chief   Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky:
        H.J. Res. 117.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The principal constitutional authority for this legislation 
     is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of 
     the United States (the appropriation power), which states: 
     ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .'' In 
     addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the 
     Constitution (the spending power) provides: ``The Congress 
     shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for 
     the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. 
     . . .'' Together, these specific constitutional provisions 
     establish the congressional power of the purse, granting 
     Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine 
     their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set 
     forth terms and conditions governing their use.

                          ____________________
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41161

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE GARCIA-VAZQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-978

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Garcia-Vazquez (Garcia) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 77-

month sentence for illegal reentry after removal. Garcia admitted at

rearraignment that he was apprehended in Laredo, Texas, in 2007 after having

been removed from the United States in 1997. Garcia argues that the district

court committed plain error by applying the “aggravated felony” enhancement

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on the finding that he had committed an

aggravated felony in 2000 and had been removed in 2001. Garcia argues that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41161

2

the fact of his 2001 removal was not alleged in his indictment, proven beyond a

reasonable doubt at trial, or admitted by him during the proceedings.

Because Garcia did not object on this ground before the district court, plain

error review applies to this issue. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165,

171 n.10 (5th Cir. 1999). As the Government acknowledges, the district court

plainly erred in finding that Garcia was removed in 2001 for purposes of

increasing his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(2) beyond the two-year statutory

maximum under § 1326(a) that otherwise would have been applicable. See

United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 504-06 (5th Cir. 2008). However,

contrary to the Government’s argument, this error did seriously affect the

fairness and integrity of the proceedings. See id. at 507. In the exercise of our

discretion, relief is warranted. See id. Accordingly, Garcia’s sentence is vacated

and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with Rojas-Luna.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James J. Maguire, Jr., chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Report fully 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.

James J. Maguire, Jr.
-------------------------------------
James J. Maguire, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Joe WILLIAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 13, 2005.

Anthony Joe Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Joe Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not *443made 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*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


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


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-101469) on Form S-3, (Nos. 333-66949 and 333-72696) on Form S-8 of
Northern Border Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) of our report dated March 2,
2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Partnership as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, 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, 2005, and the related
financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K
of the Partnership.

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


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 6, 2006