alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017121EN.01002101.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SNCM v Commission

(Case T-454/13) (1)

1

((State aid - Maritime cabotage - Aid implemented by France in favor of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for an additional service to the service of Basis to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Altmark judgment - Determination of the amount of aid))

(2017/C 121/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: initially by A. Winckler, F.-C. Laprévote, J.-P. Mignard and S. Mabile, and subsequently by A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, and finally by F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, avocats)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and M. B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Corsica Ferries France SAS (Bastia — France), (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) awarded by France to Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Corsica Ferries France SAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Corsica Ferries France SAS.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY HOBEREK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:99-cr-00013-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Hoberek seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it 

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Hoberek has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Hoberek’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously 

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Hoberek’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
#### People v DiPalma (Samuel)

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1647 (Erie)

denied 3/23/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 1)
No. 10-6100.

#### Kelly Brenton Farley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 369,

178 L. Ed. 2d 238,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7591.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 1294.
# DLA Distribution modernization driven by data and warfighter support 

/ Published May 1, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Adarryl Roberts, Defense Logistics Agency acting deputy chief information officer, met with DLA Distribution leadership April 6 to brainstorm ways the agency can use technology and information tools to enhance modernization efforts in support of the warfighter.

“There’s a certain infrastructure cost just to execute,” said Roberts, relating to the necessity of fiscal responsibility as a due diligence to the taxpayer.

As part of that responsibility, DLA Distribution is leveraging data on current sustainment operations to determine where modernization efforts are best deployed.

Contrary to intuitive thought, pulling active material back to a location where modernized efforts are in place is more effective for the timely delivery to the warfighter. It also can contribute to an effective 35% in savings to DLA Distribution customers.

“We have been using the data to show DLA Distribution capabilities in contested logistics,” said Perry Knight, DLA Distribution deputy commander.

The need for technological support to these efforts all comes down to making it as simple and seamless as possible for the warfighter. To meet the mission of “warfighter always,” the interface and ability to track material from the time of order to arrival must be clear and simple ... which is where Roberts and his team come in.

As part of DLA, they are uniquely poised to build the necessary tools while maintaining a close understanding of the overall DLA mission as it relates to warfighter support, fiscal responsibility and legal compliance.

Modernization improvements already in place such as voice pick technology and wearables have greatly enhanced DLA Distribution efforts, and they have been met with praise from the workforce.

The goal of any technological enhancement effort is to make sure it is intuitive and used by employees and customers. DLA Distribution provides a wide array of options to train employees on the state-of-the-art equipment.
#### Maione, Matter of, v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 916

denied
# C_2014024EN.01000802.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/8

---

Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Intra-Presse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11: Golden Balls Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-581/13 P)

2014/C 24/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Intra-Presse (represented by: P. Péters, advocaat, T. de Haan, avocat, M. Laborde, avocate)

Appellant:

Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Golden Balls Ltd

Otherparties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rule on the action brought by Intra-Presse under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rule on the action brought by Intra-Presse under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1);

1

| — | order that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs be reserved.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds.

Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in defining the relevant public, in assessing the degree of conceptual similarity between marks by adding a requirement of ‘intellectual process of translation’, ‘begin by translating’ or ‘prior translation’, and in omitting to take the reputation of the earlier mark for services in Class 41 into account. Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 8(5) CTMR by failing to carry out a global assessment and omitting to examine the relevance of the reputation of Appellant’s earlier mark and the existence of a possible link.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 78, p. 1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

                               ABERCROMBIE & FITCH

                                   STOCK AWARD
                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

This Stock Option Agreement is entered into by and between Abercrombie & Fitch
(the "Company"), and the associate of the Company whose name appears below (the
"Associate") in order to set forth the terms and conditions of Options granted
to the Associate under The Abercrombie & Fitch 1996 Stock Option and Performance
Incentive Plan (1998 Restatement, as amended) (The "Plan").

              ASSOCIATE'S NAME:

              SOCIAL SECURITY #:

              ADDRESS:

              # OPTIONS:

              DATE OF GRANT:

              GRANT PRICE:

              OPTION TYPE:

              VESTING:                    Shares vest over four years
                                          25% / 25% / 25% / 25%

Subject to the attached Terms and Conditions and the terms of the Plan, which
are incorporated herein by reference, the Company hereby grants to the Associate
Options to purchase shares of Common Stock of the Company, as outlined above.

The Company and the Associate have executed this Agreement as of the Date of
Grant set forth above.

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH                         ASSOCIATE

____________________________________        ____________________________________
Michael Jeffries, Chairman and Chief
 Executive Officer
in . - 

: i 

a 

P 

, ~-f 

-0PY 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. C. J. Wilde 

County Auditor 

Nueces County 

Corpus Chrlstl, Texas 

Opinion NO. O-4956 

Re: Cancellation of delinquent 

ad valorem taxes upon purchase of property by municipal 

corporation. 

Dear Slri 

By your letter of October 30, 1942, you request 

the opinion of this department In answer to the following 

question: Where a political subdivision of this State purchases property for public use upon which property there 

are delinquent ad valorem taxes, are such taxes cancelled 

by such purchase? ' 

The Constitution, Article 8, Sec. 2, authorizes 

~the Legislature to exempt from taxation, property owned by 

political subdivisions of this State and devoted to public 

purposes. This Constitutional provision has been carried 

Snto effect by Article 7150, R. C. S., which specifically 

exempts from taxation all property of political subdivisions 

used for public purposes. Neither the constitution nor the 

statutes, however, release or authorize the release or cancellation of ad valorem taxes which have accrued prior to 

the date on which such property is, by such political subdivision, devoted to public use. 

Such Is the holding in the case of City of Dallas 

v. State, 28 S. W. (2d) 937,~ in which writ of error was 

refused by the Supreme Court. In that case the court had c 

before it the question of whether or not the City of Dallas 
l 

. . .J - 

Hon. C. J. Wilde - page 2 

was liable for ad valorem taxes whlch.had accrued on property 

purchased by the said city, prior to the date of Its purchase 

for public use. The land In question was acquired by the 

city and devoted to public use in February, 1924. In holding 

the City of Dallas liable for such taxes the Court said: 

"We conclude that the reservoir site of the 

city of Dallas should be held exempt from taxation 

but that the city of Dallas should be held liable 

for all taxes due on land occupied by the reservoir 

prior to January 1, 1925." 

We answer your question in the negative, and hold 

that where a political subdivision acquires property for public use, (though such property is thereafter, during the time 

It Is devoted to such public use, exempt from taxation) the 

political subdivision so acquiring It is liable for delinquent 

ad valorem taxes which have accrued thereon prior to the date 

on which such property is devoted to the public us&. 

Trusting that the above has fully answered your 

Inquiry, we are 

APPROVED NOV 14. 1942 

(s) Gerald C.~M&- 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY BWB, CHAIRMAN 

Id IV 

G. P. B. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

BY 

(s) Fowler Roberts 

Assistant
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-208-001]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

June 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 15, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with the 
proposed effective date of June 1, 1998:
    Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 268 Substitute Original Sheet 
Nos. 271B, 271C, and 271D.
    Williams states that it made a filing on May 1, 1998, in Docket 
Nos. RP98-208-000, et al., to establish procedures to be used in 
conducting a reverse auction. By order dated May 29, 1998, the 
Commission directed Williams to file revised tariff sheets conforming 
to the order within 15 days after the order issued. Williams states 
that the instant filing is being made to comply with the order.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
participants listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission 
in the dockets referenced above and on all of Williams' jurisdictional 
customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16719 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-220.

#### Sean Stephen, et al., Petitioners v. John Hanley, et al.

562 U.S. 1091, 131 S. Ct. 795,

178 L. Ed. 2d 531,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9572.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 158.
No. 09-11015.

#### Cory H. Cooper, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 859, 131 S. Ct. 131,

178 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6434.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 09-1545.

#### Nahzy A. Buck, Petitioner v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

562 U.S. 839, 131 S. Ct. 200,

178 L. Ed. 2d 44,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5989.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 597 F.3d 812.
No. 10-5983.

#### Ecclesiastes M. D. Matthews, Petitioner v. James D. Purkett, Superintendent, Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center.

562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 421,

178 L. Ed. 2d 329,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8316.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 583.
No. 10-37.

#### Michael Hall, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 981, 131 S. Ct. 414,

178 L. Ed. 2d 322,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8138.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 597 F.3d 746.
No. 09-6822.

#### Jason Pepper, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1042, 131 S. Ct. 625,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8934.

178 L. Ed. 2d 432,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 10-6704.

#### In re Hubert Warren, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 660,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9258.

178 L. Ed. 2d 517,

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
#### Richards, et al. v. 19th Judicial Dist.

OP 17-0135

04/11/17

Denied

Original Proceeding Supervisory Control
Order entered July 2, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01451
- CV EDWIN M. SIGEL, Appellant
V. RAZI AAM I R, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 10
- 15162 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s June 27, 2013 motion to extend time to file brief in reply to appellee’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the reply brief tendered by appellant on June 26, 2013 be timely filed as of today’s date.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<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 Quarterly Report of Loudeye Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
M. Cavins, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the date of the financial statements contained therein.

/s/ Lawrence J. Madden
----------------------
Lawrence J. Madden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF NOVEMBER 17 , 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD78056 In the Matter of The Care and Treatment of Norman Toler a/k/a

Norman L. Toler, a/k/a Norman Lee Toler vs. State of Missouri

WD78144 Bryan Lankford vs. Mid

- Century Insurance Compa ny

WD78209 Leslie Swinney vs. James Nicholson

WD78252 Cody Warden vs. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company

WD78347 Keith Churchill vs. Tina Churchill

WD78526 Mickie Shank et al. vs. Missouri National Education Association

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

WD78081 State of Missouri vs. Cody Allen Ramsey
# Waldemar Acosta retires from Troop Support after 20 years of service 

/ Published Feb. 22, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support held a civilian retirement ceremony to honor Waldemar J. Caro Acosta, customer account specialist, on Feb. 22, 2023, in Philadelphia. 

Acosta retired with 20 years of service to DLA Troop Support. 

“We have such an outstanding workforce here at Troop Support and it gives me pleasure to honor teammates who have dedicated decades of their lives, providing great support to Warfighters, like myself, and our other federal partners,” said Army Brig. Gen. Eric P. Shirley, DLA Troop Support commander. “Today, we get to recognize such an individual.” 

Acosta dedicated his entire 20-year career to the Clothing and Textiles supply chain at DLA. 

“I feel like I’ve done so many different jobs but this here at Troop Support was by far the most rewarding,” said Acosta. “I have met so many professional and good people and it’s satisfying knowing that we are helping all of our military forces.” 

Acosta’s retirement plans include travelling every year to a new place, going salsa dancing, moving to Puerto Rico, and spending time with his family and friends. 

“I’ll be drinking piña coladas on the beach,” said Acosta. “Thank you.”
2016-1710.

#### Snyder v. Grant.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103796, 2016-Ohio-5247.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
No. 10-6445.

#### Rodney Law, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 431,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8267.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 121.