alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022318EN.01004401.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/44

---

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni dogadaji (DRINKOPOLY)

(Case T-413/22)

(2022/C 318/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative DRINKOPOLY mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 062 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2022 in Case R 596/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
## REPUBLlC AlRWAYS Shuttle America
November 14, 2012 Dockets- Dockets OST 96-1960 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Chautauqua Airlines

400 Seventh Street S.W. Room PL 401 Washington, DC 20590 RE: RepublicAirlines DearSirs: Republic Airlines



### en Republic Airlines, Inc. operates as a United Express carrier. The Continental's Family Assistance Plan on file with your office details coverage forthis operation as required by the amended Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Actof 1996, as well as the requirements specified in Vision 100. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely,

# ~D;nar Senior Manager, Corporate Safety RepublicAirways Holdings

8909 Purdue Road, Suite 300,lndianapolis, lndiana 46268 ••••••
No. 11-10920.

#### Chavez *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Submitted January 30;

remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 5, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*SAMUEL ROBERT HANNAH, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Marion County Circuit Court

15CR03320; A159301

393 P3d 1198

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, and Lindsey K. Detweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*663PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle (Counts 1 and 5), second-degree criminal trespass (Count 4), and possession of methamphetamine (Count 6). In his fourth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing a term of 60 months’ imprisonment and 18 months’ post-prison supervision on Count 5 because the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense. Defendant requests that we exercise our discretion to correct that unpreserved claim of error as plain error, ORAP 5.45(1). The state concedes that the sentence was unlawful and that the court plainly erred in imposing it. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Unlawful use of a vehicle is a Class C felony, ORS 164.135(2), which has a maximum indeterminate sentence of five years, or 60 months, ORS 161.605(3). Thus, defendant’s sentence on his conviction for Count 5 exceeded the statutory maximum for that offense. That error is apparent on the record, and we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct it for the reasons stated in *State v. Ramos,*254 Or App 748, 749, 295 P3d 176 (2013)— *viz.,*“because the error could have a significant effect on defendant’s sentence, it can be corrected with a minimum of judicial resources, and the state has no interest in defendant serving an unlawful sentence.”

The remaining question is our disposition in light of that error. Defendant requests that we remand the entire case for resentencing. The state argues that we should “remand only for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to enter a corrected judgment striking the 18-month term of post-prison supervision from Count 5” because the error is not one that requires resentencing under ORS 138.222(5)(a). We have previously rejected the state’s argument in this context and do so again here. *See, e.g., State v. Sartin,*248 Or App 748, 749, 274 P3d 259 (2012); *State v. Angell,*200 Or App 244, 246-47, 113 P3d 988 (2005). Accordingly, we remand the entire case to the trial court for resentencing. ORS 138.222 (5)(a). Because of that disposition, we do not reach defendant’s third assignment of error, *664which raises another unpreserved challenge to his sentence on Count 5. We reject defendant’s remaining assignments of error without discussion.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
August 1, 2012

No. 11-11114.

#### Dupree *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter ended October 28, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  December 12, 2006      /s/ Ron Staffieri
                              Ron Staffieri
                              Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leysmilan RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12290 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 6, 2018)

Laura Thomas Rivero, Lisa Tobin Ru-bio, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service—Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph A. Chambrot, Chambrot Law Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leysmilan Rodriguez appeals his 78-month sentence, imposed at the low end of the advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health' care and wire fraud. The doctrine of invited error precludes Rodriguez from arguing that he was not an organizer or leader of this conspiracy: he agreed to recommend that the district court conclude he was an organizer or leader of the criminal activity in question. For background, see *United States v. Love,*449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" [Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] Sent: 03/15/2011 08:58 PM AST To: Robertj Wayland Cc: Charlotte Bertrand; Karen Thundiyil Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EPA's EGU MACT Rule

Mar9_2011_Handout1.pdf Mar9_2011_Handout2.pdf

Mar9_2011_Handout3.pdf

Hi Bob, Consistent with our EO, the handouts from this meeting are attached.

Regards, Cortney

When: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:00 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: 10103 NEOB

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Bob Baugh, AFL-CIO Energy and Environment Task Force has requested this meeting.
No. 11-9935.

#### Nowill *v.*Frazier, Warden.

Super. Ct. Washington County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
!function(e){function r(r){for(var n,a,c=r[0],l=r[1],i=r[2],p=0,s=[];p<c.length;p++)a=c[p],Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(o,a)&&o[a]&&s.push(o[a][0]),o[a]=0;for(n in l)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(l,n)&&(e[n]=l[n]);for(f&&f(r);s.length;)s.shift()();return u.push.apply(u,i||[]),t()}function t(){for(var e,r=0;r<u.length;r++){for(var t=u[r],n=!0,c=1;c<t.length;c++){var l=t[c];0!==o[l]&&(n=!1)}n&&(u.splice(r--,1),e=a(a.s=t[0]))}return e}var n={},o={1:0},u=[];function a(r){if(n[r])return n[r].exports;var t=n[r]={i:r,l:!1,exports:{}};return e[r].call(t.exports,t,t.exports,a),t.l=!0,t.exports}a.m=e,a.c=n,a.d=function(e,r,t){a.o(e,r)||Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t})},a.r=function(e){"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},a.t=function(e,r){if(1&r&&(e=a(e)),8&r)return e;if(4&r&&"object"==typeof e&&e&&e.__esModule)return e;var t=Object.create(null);if(a.r(t),Object.defineProperty(t,"default",{enumerable:!0,value:e}),2&r&&"string"!=typeof e)for(var n in e)a.d(t,n,function(r){return e[r]}.bind(null,n));return t},a.n=function(e){var r=e&&e.__esModule?function(){return e.default}:function(){return e};return a.d(r,"a",r),r},a.o=function(e,r){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,r)},a.p="";var c=window.webpackJsonp=window.webpackJsonp||[],l=c.push.bind(c);c.push=r,c=c.slice();for(var i=0;i<c.length;i++)r(c[i]);var f=l;u.push([127,0]),t()}({127:function(e,r,t){"use strict";t.r(r);t(15),t(18);var n=t(14),o=t.n(n),u=t(126);!function(e){e.behaviors.carousel={attach:function(e){var r=e.querySelectorAll(".js-carousel"),t=window.matchMedia("(min-width: 880px)");r.forEach((function(e){t.matches&&Object(u.a)({autoplay:!1,container:e.querySelector(".js-carousel__container"),controlsContainer:e.querySelector(".js-carousel__controls"),mode:"gallery",navContainer:e.querySelector(".js-carousel__nav"),preventScrollOnTouch:"auto"})}))}}}(o.a)},14:function(e,r){e.exports=Drupal}});
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                  
<ARTICLE> 5                             
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from the quarter ended June 30,
1997 Form 10-Q Consolidated Balance Sheets and
Consolidated Statements of Operations as of June 30,
1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000                      
                                        
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         6,190
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   9
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,783
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,199
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  38
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (471)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 3,627
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,194
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  28.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
                                                    

</TABLE>
# C_2022340EN.01004701.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/47

---

Action brought on 30 June 2022 — Good Services v EUIPO — ITV Studios Global Distribution (EL ROSCO)

(Case T-383/22)

(2022/C 340/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Good Services ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark EL ROSCO — EU trade mark No 13 265 483

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2022 in Case R 958/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 13 265 483 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 13 265 483 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the case-law interpreting that article and the concept of bad faith, and the point at which bad faith is to be assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the case-law interpreting that article and the concept of bad faith, and the point at which bad faith is to be assessed.

---
No. 11-438.

#### Liberty University et al. v. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10957.

#### Branham *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
| POWER      OF ATTORNEY                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Annual      Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended |
| December      31, 2008                                    |

| Company                                  | State of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Public      Service Company of Oklahoma  | Oklahoma               |
| Southwestern      Electric Power Company | Delaware               |

| /s/ Nicholas K. Akins      | /s/ Michael G. Morris      |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|
| Nicholas      K. Akins     | Michael      G. Morris     |
|                       |                       |
| /s/ Carl L. English        | /s/ Richard E.Munczinski   |
| Carl      L. English       | Richard      E. Munczinski |
|                       |                       |
| /s/ John B. Keane          | /s/ Robert P. Powers       |
| John      B. Keane         | Robert      P. Powers      |
|                       |                       |
| /s/ Holly K. Koeppel       | /s/ Susan Tomasky          |
| Holly      K. Koeppel      | Susan      Tomasky         |
|                       |                       |
| /s/ Venita McCellon-Allen  | /s/ Dennis E. Welch        |
| Venita      McCellon-Allen | Dennis      E.Welch        |
No. D-2660.

#### In re Disbarment of Burke.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 959.]
On respondent’s amended motion to dismiss nonappellant/nonpetitioner filed March 10, and respondent’s response filed March 15;

motion to dismiss granted, appeal dismissed June 28,

petition for review denied November 28, 2017 (362 Or 208)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*GLENDA MAE HILL, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Deschutes County Circuit Court

MI150184; A160981

397 P3d 89

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, for motion.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for response.

Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*524PER CURIAM

The state moves to dismiss defendant’s appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor following revocation of a diversion agreement. We grant the state’s motion and dismiss the appeal. *See State v. Jairl,*229 Or 533, 541-42, 368 P2d 323 (1962) (holding that a defendant who pleads guilty may not appeal under ORS 138.040); *State v. Clevenger,*297 Or 234, 244, 683 P2d 1360 (1984) (adhering to the holding in *Jairl*and upholding the dismissal of an appeal where the defendant, who had pleaded guilty, assigned error only to the validity of the trial court’s acceptance of the plea); *State v. Cloutier,*351 Or 68, 79-80, 84, 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (citing *Jairl*and *Clevenger*for the proposition that, where a defendant has pleaded guilty or no contest to a misdemeanor, the defendant may not appeal under ORS 138.040); *see also State v. Landahl,*254 Or App 46, 51-52, 292 P3d 646 (2012), *rev den,*353 Or 787 (2013) (rejecting contention that a defendant who pleads guilty to a misdemeanor as part of a diversion agreement may appeal under ORS 138.040 a judgment of conviction entered following the trial court’s revocation of that agreement).

Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-94,786-01

══════════

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE FLOWERS,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. 1361743-A in the 232nd District Court

From Harris County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Applicant was convicted of delivery of less than a gram of cocaine, 

a state-jail felony, and sentenced pursuant to Section 12.44(a) of the 

Penal Code to confinement for ninety days. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

§ 481.112(b); TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.44(a). Applicant now challenges his 

conviction in this Court through an application for writ of habeas corpus. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.071. Applicant alleges that he was denied 

due process by the State’s use of false evidence against him, that his plea 
FLOWERS – 2

was involuntary, and that he is actually innocent. 

Without explicitly saying so, the Court today rightly rejects 

Applicant’s claim that he is actually innocent.1 Instead, relying on the 

recommendations of both the State and the convicting court, and this 

Court’s opinion in Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 772 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2009), as well as on the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in 

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), the Court grants Applicant 

relief on the basis of: (1) his claim that he was denied due process by the 

use of false evidence against him; and (2) his claim that his plea was 

involuntary. But I cannot join the Court’s conclusion that Applicant’s 

plea was involuntary. 

Unlike the Court, I see no need to determine whether Applicant’s 

plea was involuntary. As I have observed before, “[t]his Court has yet to 

definitively say, in a published opinion, whether or not Brady [v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] applies to a guilty plea scenario” so as to 

render the plea involuntary. See Ex parte Yearling, 663 S.W.3d 695, 697

(Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (Yeary, J., dissenting) (citing Ex parte Palmberg, 

491 S.W.3d 804, 814 n.18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)). It still has not done 

so, though purporting (needlessly, and in an unpublished opinion) to 

grant relief on that basis today. However, I concur with the Court’s 

decision to grant relief on the ground that false evidence was used 

against him. I therefore concur, respectfully, but only in the Court’s 

judgment.

FILED: June 7, 2023

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 Both the State and the convicting court reject the idea of granting 

relief to Applicant on the ground that he is actually innocent.
#### Frances Bopp v. City of Miami.

154 So. 199.

Division A.

Opinion Filed March 9, 1934.

*Wallace Ruff*and *Hendricks & Hendricks,*for Cross Plaintiff in Error;

*J. W.*Watson, Jr., *Mitchell D. Price & Charles W. Zaring*and *Jack R. Kirchik,*for Cross Defendant in Error.

*263Per Curiam.

— Plaintiff below sued out a cross writ of error to an order granting her motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff in error who had already sued out under Section 4615, C. G. L., 2905, R. G. S., an original writ of error to the same order, moves to dismiss or quash the cross writ of error as not being maintainable in advance of the entry of a final judgment in the cause.

In the case of Wolfe v. City of Miami, this day decided on the same point, it was held that on writ of error to an order granting a new trial, a cross writ of error by the opposite party seeking to assign errors generally, is not maintainable and should be quashed. On the authority of the holding in that case the cross writ of error in this case is accordingly quashed.

Cross writ of error quashed.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
EXHIBIT 32

                    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 quarterly report of ILX Resorts
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the nine
months ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I (We), Joseph P. Martori, Chief Executive
Officer, and Margaret M. Eardley, 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:

     (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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Joseph P. Martori
_____________________
Joseph P. Martori
Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2003


/s/ Margaret M. Eardley
___________________
Margaret M. Eardley
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2003
No. 11-10753.

#### Coleman *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.