alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023063EN.01001002.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Eurelec Trading SCRL, Scabel SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-98/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action brought by a public authority seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order penalising those practices and an order that they cease)

(2023/C 63/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eurelec Trading SCRL, Scabel SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Intervening parties: Groupement d’achat des centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, does not include an action of a public authority of a Member State against companies established in another Member State seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order penalising those practices and an order that they cease in relation to suppliers established in the first Member State, where that public authority exercises powers to bring proceedings or powers of investigation falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 25, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-488

Lower Tribunal No. 02-23944 

________________

Martin Jay Walters,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A case of original jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus

Martin Jay Walters, in proper person. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent. 

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ. 

SUAREZ, C.J.

Following review of Martin Jay Walters’ petition for writ of habeas corpus,

it is ordered that said petition is successive and hereby denied.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Furthermore, as it appears that Mr. Walters has submitted multiple pro se

post-conviction appeals,1 we order Mr. Walters to show good cause within thirty

(30) days why he should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further

pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal

sentencing in circuit court case number F02-23944.

We must balance Mr. Walters’ pro se right of access to courts with the

Court’s need to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals, recognizing the

seriousness of the sanction when the litigant is a criminal defendant. State v.

Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). After this order to show cause and giving

Mr. Walters an opportunity to respond, this Court may prevent such further filings. 

See id.

Petition denied. 

1 Post-conviction appeals filed by the defendant include: Walters v. State, No.

3D16-171, 2016 WL 803441 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 2, 2016); Walters v. State, 130

So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Walters v. State, 121 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013); Walters v. State, 107 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Walters v. State, 86

So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Walters v. State, 72 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA

2011); Walters v. State, 20 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Walters v. State, 985

So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Walters v. State, 995 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA

2008); Walters v. State, 959 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

2
# C_2022284EN.01001301.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 February 2022 — C. Sp. z o.o. (currently in liquidation) v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-108/22)

(2022/C 284/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C. Sp. z o.o. (currently in liquidation)

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Must Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as being applicable to a taxable person who is a hotel services consolidator and who purchases accommodation services and resells them to other economic operators, in cases where those transactions are not accompanied by any other ancillary services?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
# C_2022441EN.01001201.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Sofatutor GmbH

(Case C-565/22)

(2022/C 441/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Sofatutor GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights be interpreted as meaning that the consumer has a new right of withdrawal where a distance contract is ‘extended automatically’ (Article 6(1)(o) of that directive)?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---
# C_2023134EN.01000202.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Appeal brought on 12 September 2022 by Luís Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2022 in Case T-287/22, Novais v Portugal

(Case C-592/22 P)

(2023/C 134/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luís Miguel Novais (represented by: C. Almeida Lopes, Á. Oliveira, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 17 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luís Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                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 PGI, Incorporated (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 represents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Registrant.




/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer                                      March 30, 2004
------------------------
Laurence A. Schiffer
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)




<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### L’Keith Antwan IRVING Plaintiff-Appellant v. Corporal Heath DICKSON; Officer Chris Bruno Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-3246

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 13, 2018

Filed: March 2, 2018

L’Keith Antwan Irving, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, L’Keith Irving appeals after the district court—in light of a then-pending proceeding in state court—dismissed Irving’s complaint pre-service and without prejudice, based on abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Irving also moves in this court for leave to amend his complaint.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal based on Younger was improper. See Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review); cf. Yamaha Motor *528Corp., U.S.A. v. Riney, 21 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 1994) (necessary predicate for Younger dismissal is the opportunity to raise and have timely decided by competent state tribunal the federal issues involved). We thus vacate the dismissal order and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. We also deny Irving’s motion seeking this court’s permission to amend his complaint.
Exhibit
21.1



Subsidiaries
of Rand Capital Corporation



|Subsidiary                             |  | Jurisdiction
    of Incorporation
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    BeetNPath Holdings Corp.      |  | New
    York                     
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    Capital SBIC, Inc.            |  | New
    York                     
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    Carolina Skiff Holdings Corp. |  | New
    York                     
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    Filterworks Holdings Corp.    |  | New
    York                     
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    GTEC Holdings Corp.           |  | New
    York                     
|                                       |  |                                  
|Rand
    Somerset Holdings Corp.       |  | New
    York
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Montana EAVS Jurisdictions 

56 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

706,173 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

218,683 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

42,251 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 46,481 

In-Person 55,303 

Online 0 

Motor Vehicle Office 70,739 

Public Assistance 

Office 1,896 

Disability Office 13 

Military Recruitment 

Office 65 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 22,780 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 21,406 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

Other Mode 

2,703 By Mail 0% 370,677 

73% 

In-Person E-Day 

135,272 

27% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 508,652 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 0 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 2,703 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

56 

44

12 

0 0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

0 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

✔ Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
No. 11-9952.

#### Brist *v.*Minnesota.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-21075 Summary Calendar

RUSSELL L. CURTIS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON; JANET S. CHAFETZ; GARY DWORKIN; HARRELL ROGERS; HELEN EBAUGH, MARCO MARIOTTO, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CV-5154

- - - - - - - - - - September 11, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Russell L. Curtis, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons set forth by the district
court. See Curtis v. University of Houston , No. CA-H-95-5154 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 1996).No. - 2 - AFFIRMED.
#### Antonio AUSLER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wes BRADFORD; CPL. James Collins; State of Arkansas; Timothy Bunch; Lee Short; Dan (Charles) Hancock; Ronald Davis, Jr.; Honorable John Putman Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-2487

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 3, 2018

Filed: January 10, 2018

Antonio Ausler, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Ausler appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his civil rights action, brought under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal reviewed de novo). Further, we find that Ausler’s argument on appeal — that, because he was not incarcerated when he filed his complaint, his claims for damages were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) — is precluded by circuit precedent. See Newmy v. Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008, 1011-12 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that Heck’s favorable-termination rule applies when § 1983 plaintiff is no longer incarcerated). Accordingly, we deny Ausler’s motion for oral argument, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable 5. Y. Prestoa 

County Attorney 

Chlldraaa County 

Chlidresa, Tems 

Attention: fionoreblo C. C. ~OU&tGll 

Dear cir: 

larese cowltfr la 

8 paid an sxaaloners* Court 

uthorlzad the 

e order setting the %mrlfr~a 

and a oopy or the order autholc 

Lent or a deputy end his salary 

to be paid out of the General Fund, are inolosed 

herewith. 

*I hate oheoked the atstutes oovering the egpolntoent or dimutica, and the recaa Or the Sherirr*s 

orrios, and 1 oan not find my etstuts authOriZing 

the comiisslonors~ court to pay a depnty 8hdrr 

out 31’ the r,unerzal 2-d. 
. . 

3onorahle $. i'. ?rsaton, raga 2 

*it is ;ay oplnlon that such order is void. 

I would ap-,raolnte'an oplnlon ZP~E you oh the 

velfdft: sf t&e lnoloaed order. 

*. . . ." 

The population or ChildrsEa County, Texas, aooordlag to the 1940 Federal oansus Is 12.147 ihhabftants, and 

es stetcd In your latter 1ta'oSflcers are oonymsntsd on tka 

tee bsola. 

IQttaie 6ai9, V~Pflan',S &Qoti,ted Texas Cl~ll ?tatutes, reeds lu zart a9 r0ii0w3: 

“. . . . Provided further, thnt lS fh the 

c:inlsn OL' tho CouuiosIoners~ Cmrt Sees of the 

sherirr’s ofrlce are nat ruSS:cient to :ustiSy the 

peymmt of salaries or ruoh deputies, the CommitsIonars* Court shall heve the power to uey sam 

:ut LX tke ;:enemi Fund of zcld. count7."" 

?ection 1 oS hrtiole 3902, %rzonqs Amoteted Texas 

clv3.l Xatutss, which est.6 the caxi~ 3alr;rles CU? deputier-, 

eaalatenta and olerks in oouaties'ot the claes oS Childres8 

County, rundfi as follows: ., ,~ ~ 

*I. In oountles harln;; a pofulatIon OS 

txenty-ilve thcuaahd (25,000) or :cza iuhabltanta, 

first assistaht.or &let deput? zizt to exceed 

Z'f8htesn Hundred ($l800.00) Oollara gc;r etiaua; 

other asa:atahts, deputlee or alerks ri3t to OXoeed Flftcez iiuadred (#l~OO.OC) Dollars per annos each." 

-, . 

In ymr letter you do not state wcether tke deputy 

sheriri eCpoioteci sac F? ohlol deputy of an ordlnmy Ceputy. 

IiY the d0puty ap:3olnted was okief XaLut;. 3LerifS 

it is cur opinion that the osdor oS ths Oourt alloWihC him 

A saltmy of GlS0.W per contb (12 months or yearly salary et 

such sionthly IRW would be $1800.00) payable out OS the &enerai fund was wild provided t&t OS round in the order that 

foe3 0r the sbrtlf~s ofrio Were3 insufxioient to pi;r ame. 
. , 

3’ c- 

” . 

r. 

Fodorablo d. X. Peaton, ?alie 3 

cIt the dey$y sppointed was not B ohief ;:t;rutY kls 

saiary ooulci not have kjen legally set at mm than .,:125.oO 

per month (12 zcontha or yearly selary.would bc$l500.00).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         524,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,341,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,017,000
<PP&E>                                         538,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,332,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,644,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,717,000
<COMMON>                                    13,576,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,033,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,332,000
<SALES>                                      5,161,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,161,000
<CGS>                                        1,681,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,981,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             268,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                236,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            236,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   236,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
No. 11-10413.

#### Ingram *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Lucio MENDEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10783 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 12, 2018

*442James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Oscar Lucio Mendez, Jr., Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Lucio Mendez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed’ a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc., Lumentum Holdings, Inc., Lumentum Inc., Lumentum Operations, LLC, Appellees

2016-2394, 2016-2395, 2017-1105, 2017-1106, 2017-1107, 2017-1108

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 12, 2018

Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, *643argued for appellant. Also represented by Tyler Dutton, Jason Daniel Eisenberg, Deirdre M. Wells.

Sarah J. Guske, Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. Also represented by Wayne 0, Stacy, Dallas, TX.

Nathaniel T. Browand, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. Also represented by Christopher James Gaspar; Mark C. Scarsi, Los Angeles, CA.

Joel Sayres, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Denver, CO, argued for appellees Lumentum Holdings, Inc., Lumentum Inc., Lumentum Operations, LLC. Also represented by Kenneth Liebman, Minneapolis, MN.

Matthew J. Moore, Latham *&*Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Ciena Corporation. Also represented by Chi Cheung, Clement J. Naples, New York, NY; Robert Steinberg, Los Angeles, CA.

Jonathan Pieter Van Es, Banner & Wii> coff, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for appellees Cori-ant Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc. Also represented by Thomas Kent Pratt; Michael Steven Cuviello, Washington, DC.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.