alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01003603.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/36

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 — SIAE v Commission

(Case T-433/08 R)

(Application for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2009/C 32/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, M. Mandel, L. Vullo and S. Valentino, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Map Created: October 2009.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3.

High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2000

(County Rates)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of adults, 

25 years and over, completing 12 years or more of school. 

The map uses natural breaks in the distribution to organize 

the data into groups of common values. 

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

49.2% - 60.7% 

60.8% - 68.7% 

68.8% - 76.6% 

76.7% - 91.4% 

Completion Rate 

U.S. average = 80.4% 

Appalachian average = 76.8% 

(Natural Breaks Classification)
!"#$%&'()#*+#,-./#

• 0/)1&2-13&4#$-"'1-5&4#

– 6%-((+47847#84#6-13&4-"+.#

– 918:&(8"+#8.#-#(&;#1+.8.5<8"/#:-/#=&1>-5&4#
!"#$%&'()#*+#,-./#

• ?+2&<+1/#@-2"&1#

– 6%-((+47847#84#6-13&4-"+.#

– 087%#0+"+1&7+4+8"/#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
$2+4-18&#B#
$2+4-18&#B#
$2+4-18&#C#
$2+4-18&#C#
$2+4-18&#C#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#
9%+#D-('+#&=#EF#$+8.>82#

• G<+1-((#H<+1-7+# CIB#A*G,#,J?#
9%+#D-('+#&=#EF#$+8.>82#

• G<+1-((#H<+1-7+# CIB#A*G,#,J?#

• K8"%#EF#$+8.>82# ELM#A*G,#,J?#

• K8"%&'" # #BNM#A*G,#,J?#
9%+#O-2P:&"##
$8Q+#&=#"%+#A8..8..8::8-4#A$@#0&18Q&4"-(#R(-/#

• R(-/#."-1"+)#O-4'-1/#CSSN#

T#6%+.-:+-P+#$+1+48"/#.+((.#BUVICB#*-11+(.W#

• K+((.#)18((+)#"&#)-"+X#BNMS#

• 6-:8"-(#.:+4"#YZE#*8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• ,451+#:(-/#:&"+45-(#&=#BSSVSSS#;+((.#

• 6-:8"-(#?+['81+)#ECS#*8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• !4<+.">+4"#R&"+45-(########\BSSVSSSVSSSVSSS#
9%+#O-2P:&"##
$8Q+#&=#"%+#A8..8..8::8-4#0&18Q&4"-(#R(-/#]#G.-7+#

• R(-/#."-1"+)#F+2+>3+1#CSSE# ###T6+^-#*+4^->84#.+((.#BSVMYM#*-11+(.W#

• K+((.#)18((+)#"&#)-"+X#LS#T.842+#CSSCW#

• 6-:8"-(#.:+4"X#IU#A8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• R(-/#:&"+45-(X#YVNSS#;+((.#

• 6-:8"-(#?+['81+)X#CB#*8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• !4<+.">+4"#R&"+45-(########\BSSVSSSVSSSVSSS#
*18_(+4+..#
@1-2"'1+#F+"+25&4#
G.-7+#F8.2&<+1/#K+((#
9&"-(#0&18Q&4"-(#@&&"-7+#$842+#CSSM#
A8..8..8::8-4#]#@&1>-5&4#A821&#!>-7+#

A8..8..8::8-4#6&471+..#CSBE#

`&1"%+-."#GP(-%&>-#

!"#$%&'()*+!,'&+'*-!,(.*

/01/*2345634748*!39$%:;<=*+64;:>;*-64<?*'6*

"@<47AB*'C<*D38C<=*!39*+E;F*#6G<=*%:;<=*.:;E=:764*

&=<:?*"4*'C<*H3??3??3553*#3I<*&4@*+C:;
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-04-124-CV

SHELLY WITT	APPELLANT

	V.

RONALD WITT	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On May 7, 2004, and June 17, 2004, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D: HOLMAN, GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.	

DELIVERED: August 12, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Blake Wingate, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered July 18, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

*192Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

At the trial, the parties stipulated that if the police chemist were to testify, he would indicate that his analysis showed that a substance which was inside an envelope was cocaine. However, there was no stipulation that the envelope produced at the trial and identified by the undercover police officer was the same envelope, the contents of which were analyzed by the police chemist. The People failed, by other evidence, to demonstrate that the substance analyzed by the chemist was the same substance that was allegedly sold by the defendant to the undercover officer. Since there was no evidence that the defendant sold a controlled substance, the evidence against the defendant was legally insufficient to establish an essential element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Although the issue of law was not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250), we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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), the undersigned officer of IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                    |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES
BRYCE
|                         |  |  |  | Name:              |  | James P. Bryce         
|                         |  |  |  | Title:             |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.9


                           SHORT TERM PROMISSORY NOTE

US$4,000.00                                                   September 8, 2005

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Voyager One, Inc. promises to pay to the order of
Castle Hill Advisory Group at such place as the holder of this Note may from
time to time designate, the principal sum of Four Thousand and 00/100
(US$4,000.00) together with simple interest from the date funds are received by
Voyager One, Inc. at the rate of six percent (6) per annum on the principal
balance.

         The note matures and becomes due anytime on demand. The amount of the
payment shall be an amount equal to the outstanding principal and unpaid
interest.

         All payments on account of the indebtedness evidenced by this note
shall be first applied to interest on the unpaid principal balance and the
remainder to principal.

         All parties to this note severally waive presentment for payment,
notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest.

         This note shall be effective September 8, 2005 regardless of when it is
signed.

              "Payor"                                "Payee"

Name:      Voyager One. Inc.                  Castle Hill Advisory Group
Address:   859 West End Court                 433 S. Washington St.
           Vernon Hills, IL 60061             Hinsdale, IL 60521
Phone:     847-984-6200                       Phone: 630-546-6672
Fax:       847-984-6201


           By: /s/ John A. Lichter           By:  /s/ Sebastien C. DuFort
               -------------------                -----------------------
              Signature & Date                    Signature & Date
              John A. Lichter                     Sebastien C. DuFort
                                                  Managing Director
# C_2009069EN.01002001.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2008 — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-562/08)

(2009/C 69/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Müller Fleisch GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant:

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Interested party:

Question referred

Is Article 6(1) of, in conjunction with Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 (2) of 22 June 2001, to be interpreted as precluding the expansion of mandatory testing to all bovine animals over 24 months of age, as established by the BSE-Untersuchungsverordnung (German Regulation on BSE testing) of 1 December 2000 (BGBl I, p. 1659), amended by the Regulation of 25 January 2001 (BGBl I, p. 164)?

1

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001 amending Annexes III, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards epidemio-surveillance and testing of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 173, p. 12).

2

---
# C_2019432EN.01004802.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)

(Case T-568/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark WE - Earlier national word mark WE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Local-e-motion GmbH (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, M. Fischer and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 (Case R 128/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen and Local-e-motion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Local-e-motion to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Local-e-motion to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
Exhibit 8.1



Significant Subsidiaries of Sociedad
Química y Minera de Chile S.A.



|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | Country of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|SQM Industrial S.A.                                   |  | Chile                   
|SQM Nitratos S.A.                                     |  | Chile                   
|SQM Salar S.A.                                        |  | Chile                   
|Minera Nueva Victoria S.A.                            |  | Chile                   
|Servicios Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. |  | Chile                   
|Soquimich Comercial S.A.                              |  | Chile                   
|SQM North America Corp.                               |  | USA                     
|SQM Europe N.V.                                       |  | Belgium                 



For a complete list of foreign and domestic subsidiaries see
Note 2.4.a to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1833

S. REBECCA DACHMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-4352-PJM)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. Rebecca Dachman, Appellant Pro Se. George Levi Russell, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

S. Rebecca Dachman appeals the district court’s order dismissing this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dachman v. United

States, No. CA-97-4352-PJM (D. Md. May 5, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2009032EN.01004801.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/48

---

Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission

(Case T-531/08)

(2009/C 32/92)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declaration that the letter from the Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission D/53778 [COMP/H4/NM/ed D(2008) 247], of 2 October 2008, is null and void, in so far as it requires the interest referred to in Decisions 2003/27/EC and 2002/806/EC, of 11 July 2001 (infringement file 2007/2215), to be recovered on a compound basis; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declaration that the letter from the Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission D/53778 [COMP/H4/NM/ed D(2008) 247], of 2 October 2008, is null and void, in so far as it requires the interest referred to in Decisions 2003/27/EC and 2002/806/EC, of 11 July 2001 (infringement file 2007/2215), to be recovered on a compound basis; and

| — | An order that the Commission should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-529/08 Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission.

Diputación Foral de Álava

Commission

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Jettchen Bauer, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June 5, 1959.

*Monroe E. Stein*for Bernard Bauer as executor, petitioner.

*Harry A. Foster,*as special guardian for Bichard Ochs and others, infants, respondent.

*708S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

In this application to settle the final account of the executor, instructions are requested. Testatrix created a residuary trust in which she named her son primary income beneficiary and his “widow” secondary income beneficiary. Upon their death, the remainder is to go to the then surviving children and their issue. In the event of the death of the husband, leaving no widow, the income is to be paid to his children and their issue with remainder payable to said children or the issue of deceased children upon attaining the ages of 30, 35 and 40 respectively. In the event that at any time prior to the distribution of the remainder there shall not be living any children of testatrix’ son or their issue, the remainder is to pass to certain persons named in paragraph 5 (E) of the will or their issue.

The son has one child now living, a daughter aged 18. He and his wife have executed releases of any and all interest they may have in income or principal or in anywise affecting the estate. Petitioner asks that he be appointed trustee of the residuary trust to pay the income to his daughter. It is urged on behalf of the daughter that the remainder is accelerated and that she should receive the entire corpus at this time. This, of course, cannot be done in view of the contingent remainder interests under the will, and since, although the interests of petitioner and his wife have been extinguished, they still remain as measuring lives of the trust.

Any question as to the validity of the secondary trust based on the life of the widow, or as to the validity of the alternative provisions of paragraph 5(E) are at this time academic and do not require determination. *(Matter of*Mount, 185 N. Y. 162.)

The court grants the prayer of petitioner that he be appointed trustee and authorizes him to continue the trust to pay the net income to the person or persons presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate. (Real Property Law, § 63; *Matter of Harteau,*204 N. Y. 292.) Petitioner’s daughter is presently the person presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate.

The reasonable compensation of the attorney'for petitioner is fixed and allowed in the amount requested.

Submit decree on notice accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-122551, 333-112448,333-103228, 333-92572, 333-83954, 333-81396, 333-43952,333-33338, 333-93653, 333-85161, 333-51117, 333-33197,and 333-06301) pertaining to the 1998 Supplemental Stock Option/ StockIssuance Plan, 1993 Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan, and Employee StockPurchase Plan of Ultratech, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2005,with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ultratech, Inc.,Ultratech, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Ultratech, Inc, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2004.
|                       | /s/ ERNST &  YOUNG LLP |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------|
| Palo Alto, California |                            |
| March 8, 2005    |                            |

 

----
# C_2008223EN.01005902.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/59

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-93/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 223/109)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIO GARCIA-LARA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70638

Agency No. A087-041-379

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Emilio Garcia-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Garfias-Rodriguez

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We grant the petition

for review and remand.

The agency erred in concluding that the holding in Matter of Briones, 24 I.

& N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Garcia-Lara ineligible

to adjust status. See Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271, 1275-77 (9th Cir.

2015); Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 520 (holding that analysis under

Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982), is necessary

to determine retroactive effect of Briones). Like the petitioner in Acosta-Olivarria

v. Lynch, Garcia-Lara applied for adjustment of status in the 21-month window

between Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) (permitting adjustment

of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and

Briones, when it was reasonable for Garcia-Lara to rely on our decision in Acosta. 

See Acosta-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1275-77. As there is no significant factual basis

to distinguish Garcia-Lara’s situation from the one presented in Acosta-Olivarria

for purposes of applying Montgomery Ward, we conclude that the BIA’s holding in

Briones does not apply retroactively to bar Garcia-Lara’s application for

adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Accordingly, we remand to the agency to

adjudicate Garcia-Lara’s application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1255(i). 

2 13-70638
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Garcia-Lara’s remaining

contentions, and we deny the government’s motion to remand as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

3 13-70638