alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-1497.

#### United States, Petitioner v. Lee Almany.

562 U.S. 1056, 131 S. Ct. 637,

178 L. Ed. 2d 471,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9051.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. On petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8, 131 S. Ct. 18, 178 L. Ed. 2d 348 (2010).

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 238.
# C_2015205EN.01002801.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-184/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYPE - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: R. Guthrie, D. Rose, V. Baxter, Solicitors, and T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, subsequently by R. Guthrie, D. Rose, T. Moody-Stuart and J. Curry, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 (Case R 121/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other hand, Skype Ultd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6923.

#### Randall Howard Wolford, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 611,

178 L. Ed. 2d 445,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8984.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 479.
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 GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William V. Walton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to  GiveMePower  Corporation  and will be retained by  GiveMePower
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Date:  February 15, 2005                             By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                                         ---------------------
                                                     William V. Walton
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014052EN.01002701.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/27

---

Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission

(Case C-613/13 P)

2014/C 52/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal insofar as it annuls article 1 of the contested Decision as regards the events in AFICS and the liability of Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec for them; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal insofar as it annuls article 1 of the contested Decision as regards the events in AFICS and the liability of Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec for them;

| — | set aside in full point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in full point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | if the Court of Justice gives final judgment, to dismiss the action for annulment also insofar as it concerns the events in AFICS and to reinstate the fines imposed on Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec; and, in any event, |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court of Justice gives final judgment, to dismiss the action for annulment also insofar as it concerns the events in AFICS and to reinstate the fines imposed on Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec; and, in any event,

| — | to order the applicants at first instance (now other parts in the proceedings) bear the costs of this appeal, and, to the extent that the Court of Justice gives final judgment on the action for annulment, of such case as well. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the applicants at first instance (now other parts in the proceedings) bear the costs of this appeal, and, to the extent that the Court of Justice gives final judgment on the action for annulment, of such case as well.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground: failure to comply with duty to state reasons and the rules of evidence; the General Court failed to examine several relevant pieces of evidence and applied too high evidentiary requirements for those pieces of evidence that the General Court did examine.

Second ground: contradictory reasoning; the assessment of the evidence is in direct contradiction with that in three other judgments delivered the same day relating to the same decision and the same facts.

---
No. D-2539.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Leonard Udell Stolar.

562 U.S. 814, 131 S. Ct. 405,

178 L. Ed. 2d 269,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7644.

October 4, 2010.

Leonard Udell Stolar, of Miami, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re*270quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Sofia Servilus, Appellant, v Deborah R. Walcott, Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 494]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February 24, 2015, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate an order of the same court dated May 2, 2012, granting the defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On January 21, 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. By notice of motion dated February 3, 2012, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident. The plaintiff failed to submit opposition to the defendant’s motion. In an order dated May 2, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. According to the plaintiff, she moved to vacate the May 2, 2012, order in January 2013, but the court misplaced *744these motion papers and that motion was not decided. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated December 30, 2014, the plaintiff moved to vacate the May 2, 2012, order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

In seeking to vacate the May 2, 2012, order, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Parone,*126 AD3d 923, 924 [2015]; *Bank of N.Y. v Young,*123 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2014]). A court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default *(see*CPLR 2005; *Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v Aris Realty Corp.,*83 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2011]).

The plaintiff’s counsel’s undetailed and conclusory assertion of law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s default *(see Bank of N.Y. v Young,*123 AD3d at 1069; *Dobbyn-Blackmore v City of New York,*123 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2014]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to articulate any basis for her lengthy delay in moving to vacate the May 2, 2012, order after her initial motion papers were apparently misplaced (see *Yong U Lee v Huan Wen Zhang,*133 AD3d 651, 652 [2015]; *Ortega v Bisogno & Meyerson,*38 AD3d 510, 511 [2007]). As the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she had a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion (see *JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Russo,*121 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the May 2, 2012, order.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
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  GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William V. Walton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  GiveMePower  Corporation  and  will  be  retained  by  GiveMePower
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Date:  February 14, 2006                        By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                                   ----------------------
                                                William V. Walton
                                                Chief Executive Officer
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 GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, J.L.
(Jim) Bolokoski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to  GiveMePower  Corporation  and will be retained by  GiveMePower
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Date:  May 16, 2005               By: /s/ JIM BOLOKOSKI
                                      -----------------
                                      J.L. (Jim) Bolokoski
                                      Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5871.

#### Norman Reid, Petitioner v. Michelle R. Ricci, Associate Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 473,

178 L. Ed. 2d 301,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8052.

October 12, 2010.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1608

THEODORE W. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HERBERT E. MAXEY, JR.; MICHELLE D. ROBINSON;

RICHARD S. BLANTON, in his individual

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (CA-98-90-3)

Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore W. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Collin Jefferson Hite,

Frank B. Miller, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond,

Virginia; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Gregory E. Lucyk,

Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore W. Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v.

Maxey, No. CA-98-90-3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 10-6743.

#### Alvin W. Byrd, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 545,

178 L. Ed. 2d 400,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8459,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 374.
#### Carlton DePass, Appellant, v Mark M. Mohrmann, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[67 NYS3d 203]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 3, 2016, dismissing the complaint, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 2016, which had granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the first cause of action for medical malpractice reinstated. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff alleges that he sustained a ruptured tendon in his forearm after defendant doctor gave him steroid injections on two occasions, once in the area of the thumb joint and about two weeks later, in the elbow area. Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, through the opinion of their medical expert, that the injections were given in accordance with the applicable standard of care and did not cause the tendon rupture *(Anyie B. v Bronx Lebanon Hosp.,*128 AD3d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendants also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff consented to the procedures after proper disclosure of risks and benefits.

In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact through his orthopedic expert, who opined that defendant doctor administered a steroid in an excessive concentration, and that injectable steroids pose a well-known risk of tendon rupture in tendons near the injection site due to damaging effects of the steroid on the tendon. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the steroid was long-lasting, and that the injection in the small thumb joint contributed to the rupture that occurred some time after the second injection. The expert’s opinion was detailed regarding the departure from the standard of care, and was based on the record, acknowledging that the two injections were at different sites *(see generally Roques v Noble,*73 AD3d 204, 207 [1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff’s expert, however, did not opine on the issue of the adequacy of defendants’ disclosure and informed consent *(see Shkolnik v Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst.,*211 *536AD2d 347, 350 [1st Dept 1995], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*87 NY2d 895 [1995]). Accordingly, the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent was correctly dismissed.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Bruno, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 607]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 15, 2015 *(People v Bruno,*127 AD3d 986 [2015]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 29, 2008.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11467.

#### Steve Ramon, Petitioner v. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, et al.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 204,

178 L. Ed. 2d 123,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7006.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 494.
No. 10-282.

#### Joseph M. Skutches, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara L. Glasow.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 513,

178 L. Ed. 2d 372,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8496.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.

Same case below, 981 A.2d 327.
#### In the Matter of Anthony W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 590]—

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 20, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated the appellant a juvenile *708delinquent, upon an order of fact-finding of that court dated February 22, 2016, made upon his admission, finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 13 months.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation under the enhanced supervision program for a period of 13 months, based upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted assault in the third degree. The court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, and its determination is accorded great deference *(see Matter of Norell A.-T.,*141 AD3d 712, 713 [2016]; *Matter of Kieron C.,*140 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2016]). “ ‘[T]he least restrictive alternative test does not require the court to actually try the lowest form of intervention, have it fail, and then try each succeeding level of intervention’ ” *(Matter of Sharice B.,*149 AD3d 833, 833 [2017], quoting *Matter of Tristan*W., 258 AD2d 585, 586 [1999]; *see Matter of Leah G.,*23 AD3d 658, 658 [2005]). The disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of the appellant and the need for protection of the community in light of, inter alia, the recommendation in the probation report, the appellant’s mother’s professed inability to adequately supervise him on her own, the appellant’s academic problems, and the evidence demonstrating that he continued to smoke marijuana and stole from his mother after the order of fact-finding was issued *(see Matter of Tanaja F.,*147 AD3d 936, 937 [2017]; *Matter of Elijah G.,*138 AD3d 839 [2016]; *Matter of Shaundale W.,*82 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2011]; *Matter of Ashley P.,*74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]; *Matter of Antonio C.,*294 AD2d 123, 124 [2002]).

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.