alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014315EN.01005301.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/53

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Wepa Lille v Commission

(Case T-231/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wepa Lille (Bousbecque, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Wepa Lille is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Wepa Lille is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34949-34950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17149]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
June 29, 1998.
    A closed meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 1, 1998, at 2:30 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.

[[Page 34950]]

    Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 1, 1998, at 2:30 
p.m., will be:
    Institution of injunctive actions.
    Institution of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: June 23, 1998.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17149 Filed 6-23-98; 4:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.  By: /s/ Michael Feinsod Michael Feinsod President and Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Smith, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 538]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered May 31, 2011, resentencing defendant to an aggregate term of 12 years, with 4 years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful (see *People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). We perceive no basis for reducing the term of post-release supervision imposed.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# C_2015205EN.01003002.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-715/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark Castello - Earlier national figurative mark ‘Castelló’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Horno del Espinar, S L (El Espinar, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG;

| 2) | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

1

---
# C_2014421EN.01005201.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/52

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC

(Case F-54/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Action for damages - Administrative investigations - Disciplinary procedure - Psychological harassment))

2014/C 421/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CV (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented initially by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting a request made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the excessive zeal, or even harassment, on the part of the administration.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Declares that each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013, p. 64.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            PRATT HOTEL CORPORATION


  Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL"),
Pratt Hotel Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), for
purposes of amending its Certificate of Incorporation, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY AS
FOLLOWS:

  FIRST, that the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation is amended by
deleting in its entirety existing ARTICLE FIRST and inserting in lieu thereof a
new ARTICLE FIRST, reading as follows:

  "FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is GREATE BAY CASINO CORPORATION."

  SECOND, that this Certificate of Amendment of the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation has been duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation
in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL and has been
approved by the written consent of the holders of a majority of the
Corporation's outstanding common stock, par value $0.10 (the "Common Stock"), in
accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the DGCL, and written notice of
such approval of this Certificate of Amendment of the Corporation's Certificate
of Incorporation has been given in accordance with the provisions of Section 228
of the DGCL to those holders of Common Stock who have not so approved this
Certificate of Amendment.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment
to be signed by William D. Pratt, its Executive Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary, to be effective as of the 31st day of December, 1996.

                                PRATT HOTEL CORPORATION

                                (to be renamed herewith
                                GREATE BAY CASINO CORPORATION)



                                    By:   /s/ William D. Pratt
                                          -------------------------------
                                          William D. Pratt
                                          Executive Vice President, General
                                          Counsel and Secretary
# C_2014395EN.01004401.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-256/13) (1)

((Social policy - Community action programmes in the field of youth - Partial reimbursement of the funding paid - Ineligibility of certain sums - Exceeding of the upper limit provided for in respect of a category of actions - Implementation by the national agencies of procedures to recover the sums wrongly used from the final beneficiaries))

(2014/C 395/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by W. Ferrante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 237719 of 22 February 2013, addressed to the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani (National Youth Agency, Italy), which announces the issue of a debit note in respect of a total amount of EUR 1 486 485.90, in so far as that figure includes an amount of EUR 52 036.24 for expenses borne in respect of training activities relating to the European Voluntary Service and an amount of EUR 183 729,72, in respect of sums not recovered by the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani from the final beneficiaries as regards the period from 2000 to 2004, and, secondly, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 267064 of 28 February 2013, addressed to the Dipartimento della gioventù e del servizio civile nazionale (Department for Youth and the national civil service, Italy), communicating the final evaluation conclusions from the declaration of assurance and the conclusions on the annual report of that agency in respect of 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---
# C_2015389EN.01003901.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)

(Case T-626/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling collection de lingerie - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1501/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1501/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1501/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
No. 09-11474.

#### Curtis Robert Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 595,

178 L. Ed. 2d 434,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8864.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 592 F.3d 511.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-17-00188-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 8

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1314404 

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. 

Memorandum Opinion on Remand by Chief Justice Sudderth

EX PARTE CHARLES BARTON
2 

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that Penal Code Section 42.07(a)(7), 

the electronic harassment statute, “does not implicate the First Amendment” and “is 

not facially unconstitutional,” rejecting Appellant Charles Barton’s arguments to the 

contrary. Ex parte Barton, No. PD-1123-19, 2022 WL 1021061, at *6–7 (Tex. Crim. 

App. Apr. 6, 2022); see Act of May 24, 1973, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, § 1, sec. 42.07, 

1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 956–57 (amended 2001) (current version at Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 42.07(a)(7)). Now on remand, we turn to Barton’s only remaining issue: 

whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to quash because, Barton claims, 

his charging instrument is insufficiently specific to give him adequate notice of the 

offense. 

As noted in our initial opinion, “we have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory 

orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law, and no law 

authorizes an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to quash.”1

 Ex parte 

Barton, 586 S.W.3d 573, 577 n.8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019) (op. on reh’g), rev’d, 

2022 WL 1021061; see Ex parte Alvear, 524 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, 

no pet.); see also Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“The 

1

At oral argument, Barton’s counsel was asked to address this court’s 

jurisdiction over his challenge to the motion to quash. Counsel responded that we 

could address the issue because he “ha[s] a right under the law to know what exactly 

[he is] defending against, and if you look at the charging instrument, it’s very 

incomplete.” But this is an argument on the merits of the issue; it does not give us 

jurisdiction to review it. 
3 

courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that 

jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss Barton’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. 

P. 43.2(f). 

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 30, 2022
# Preventing sexual harassment, assault everyone’s responsibility

/ Published April 11, 2016

Employees must play an active role in creating a safe and supportive workplace, Defense Logistics Agency Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Andy Busch said in a recent blog highlighting the prevention of sexual harassment and assault.

“As individuals, we can intervene to stop bad behavior when we see it happening,” he said. “We can support and practice healthy attitudes and relationships. And, when someone tells us there is a problem, we will believe them and help them find support.”

“Eliminate Sexual Assault: Know Your Part, Do Your Part” is the theme for this year’s Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, observed in communities across America in April. Though sexual violence in college and military populations is frequently highlighted by media, the issue affects all segments of society and is one of the nation’s most underreported crimes, said Renee Ferranti, who manages DLA’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program.

According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, an American is sexually assaulted every 107 seconds. Additional RAINN statistics indicate that 68 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police, and 98 percent of rapists never spend a day in jail or prison.

Employees will have several opportunities this month to learn how to prevent sexual violence. Information will be available in the McNamara Headquarters Complex cafeteria 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. each Tuesday, with topics including self-care, local resources, service-specific resources, and the difference between sexual assault and harassment and specific steps to take for each one.

Employees and their families are also invited to participate in a 5K run/walk co-hosted by DLA’s SAPR Program and the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on Friday, April 15 at 7:00 a.m. Registration begins on-site at 6:30 a.m. at Gunston Road and 14th Street.

Sexual assault coordinators and victim advocates are available 24 hours, seven days a week at DLA Headquarters and the agency’s field activities to assist military and civilian employees who’ve been victims of sexual assault. Advocates are trained and certified through the Defense Department’s SAPR Program. Their goal is to provide stability and support from the victim’s first call for help all the way through a criminal investigation if there is one.

Advocates’ first step is usually helping victims understand their reporting options, Ferranti said. Service members have two: restricted, which provides victim confidentiality and does not trigger an official investigation; or unrestricted, which does lead to an investigation. The reporting, investigative and legal processes are different for civilian employees, but DLA’s victim advocates are prepared to assist both, Ferranti added.

Employees who’ve been sexually assaulted can get immediate, confidential help by calling 877-995-5247. More information about the DoD SAPR Program is available at http://www.sapr.mil. Additional resources and links are available at http://www.dla.mil/Info/SAPR.aspx.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Medina, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 581]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 20, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the' first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty; instead, it explained to defendant that as part of his plea bargain, he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal. Furthermore, the oral colloquy was supplemented by a written waiver.

The court also properly also denied his motion to suppress eavesdropping evidence. The warrant application made the type of particularized showing of necessity required by CPL 700.15 (4). The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he requested a *Darden*hearing, and defendant forfeited review of any additional suppression claims left unresolved at the time he pleaded guilty.

Aside from the validity or applicability of defendant’s appeal waiver, defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court improperly enhanced his sentence based on his alleged failure to satisfy the conditions of this plea, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that defendant was not deprived of his right to conflict-free counsel at sentencing, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.