alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016098EN.01003201.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Sto v OHIM Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

(Case T-640/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CRETEO - Earlier national word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sto SE & Co. KGaA, formerly Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Lochner and C. Thomas, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 (Case R 905/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sto AG and Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sto SE & Co. KGaA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sto SE & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
#### Com. v. Stockton28

04/20/2016

014 MAL (2016)

28

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 650
#### In the Matter of Chauncey Girard, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Submitted January 23, 2017;

decided March 28, 2017

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Chesterfield County toasts DLA Installation Management Richmond’s wastewater treatment efforts at DSCR with Platinum Award
 
  By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond received the Platinum Award from Chesterfield County, Virginia, officials Sept. 20 for achieving 100% compliance with the county’s industrial wastewater regulations on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Chesterfield County has two compliance awards: gold and platinum. Gold is for one year of 100% compliance, and platinum is for at least five consecutive years of 100% compliance. Defense Supply Center Richmond has won the Platinum Award numerous times, making 2021 the 10th consecutive year to receive the award. At least once a year, county officials conduct physical inspections of numerous water-related operation that take place on the installation. These include industrial battery washing stations, numerous oil-water separators, and various industrial vehicle wash racks. Jimmy Parrish, chief of the Environmental Management Division for the installation, said, “Chesterfield’s regulations govern the quantity and quality of the wastewater that leaves our installation and eventually enters the county’s sewer system. We have filtration equipment and processes in place to maximize the capture and removal of any contaminants, and on top of this, we routinely test to ensure we meet county standards.” Stephen Porch, one of Richmond’s Environmental Engineers, has the responsibility to manage the wastewater program. “Having our wastewater as clean as it can be allows the county to focus its purification efforts on other customers. It’s a win-win all around,” said Porch. *Editor’s note: The Platinum award given to DSCR is an award given by Chesterfield County and is not the National Association of Clean Water (NACWA) Excellence in Management Recognition Program award.*
#### Frank J. Vetro, Appellant, v Middle Country Central School District et al., Respondents.

[48 NYS3d 607]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated October 8, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*965Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred *(see*CPLR 214 [3]; 215 [3]; Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]; *Yang v Oceanside Union Free School Dist.,*90 AD3d 649, 649 [2011]; *cf. Drakeford v Brooklyn Dist. Attorney,*266 AD2d 134, 134 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the relevant statutes of limitation were tolled or were otherwise inapplicable *(see Yang v Oceanside Union Free School Dist.,*90 AD3d at 650).

Further, the causes of action alleging conspiracy and harassment asserted against the defendant Michelle Konik-Brosdal were properly dismissed because New York does not recognize a cause of action to recover damages for harassment (see *Adeniran v State of New York,*106 AD3d 844, 845 [2013]), or an independent cause of action for conspiracy to commit a tort (see *Oseff v Scotti,*130 AD3d 797, 799 [2015]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RYAN BRANDON LITTLE, a/k/a Casino , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cr - 00143

- AWA

- RJK

- 2 )

Submitted : December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ryan Brandon Little , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ryan Brandon Little appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Little , No. 2:18

- cr - 00143

- AWA

- RJK

- 2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2020). We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
No. 10-6543.

#### Josephine Foreman and David Foreman, Petitioners v. Louisiana, et al.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 534,

178 L. Ed. 2d 393,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8639,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID KABAKOFF, PH.D., in his

capacity as Stockholders’ Agent,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellant,

v.

ZENECA, INC., a Delaware

Corporation, and MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company

,

Defendants Below

, Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No

. 430, 2020

Court Below

– Court of Chancery

of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. 2017

- 0459

- JRS

Submitted: October 13, 2021

Decided: October 21 , 2021

Before SEITZ

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR

, and

MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices , constituting the Court en Banc

.

ORDER

On this 21 st day of October

, 202 1 , after careful consideration of all briefs and

the record on appeal, and after oral argument, we find it evident that the final

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for t he

reasons stated in the January 24, 2020 bench ruling, November 18, 2020 opinion,

and November 25, 2020 order

.NOW, T HEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery

is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice
#### Beata Molska, Respondent, v Joel H. Garfield, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 911]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated January 6, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 14, 2001. Joel H. Garfield commenced an action against Beata Molska in the Small Claims Part of the Village Justice Court of the Village of Mamaroneck to recover $3,000 for property damage to his vehicle. After a trial, the Village Justice Court concluded that Garfield was responsible for the accident and entered judgment in favor of Molska dismissing the action.

Thereafter, Molska commenced the instant action against Garfield, who asserted Molska’s culpable conduct as an affirmative defense. Molska then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that the issue was res judicata. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that Garfield had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of liability in the Village Justice Court and thus was barred from relitigating that issue.

UJCA 1808 provides that “[a] judgment obtained under this article may be pleaded as res judicata only as to the amount involved in the particular action and shall not otherwise be deemed an adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein.”

Here, the defendant was not barred from litigating the issue of liability since the language of UJCA 1808 expressly provides *511that a small claims judgment is not res judicata with respect to the adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein *(see Cohen v Bloom,*234 AD2d 499 [1996]; *Purnavel v Tel-A-Car of N.Y.,*204 AD2d 297 [1994]; *Czora v Ahrens,*74 Misc 2d 601 [1973]; *cf. Omara v Polise,*163 Misc 2d 989 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
What are Syringe Services Programs (SSPs)?

Syringe Services Programs, often called SSPs, are community-based prevention programs. 

SSPs provide a range of health services, and they provide a lifeline to those struggling 

with substance abuse. Comprehensive SSPs offer patients vaccinations and testing for 

diseases, referrals to treatment for substance use disorder and other diseases (such as 

viral hepatitis and HIV), and sterile injection equipment to prevent the transmission of 

infectious diseases.

Scientists, including those at the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), have studied SSPs for more than 30 years and found 

that comprehensive SSPs benefit communities.

SSPs save lives by lowering 

the likelihood of deaths from 

overdoses. 

Providing testing, counseling, and sterile 

injection supplies helps prevent outbreaks 

of other diseases. For example, SSPs are 

associated with a 50% decline in the risk

of HIV transmission.

Users of SSPs were three 

times more likely to stop 

injecting drugs.

Law enforcement benefits from 

reduced risk of needlesticks, no 

increase in crime, and the ability to 

save lives by preventing overdoses. 

When two similar cities were 

compared, the one with an SSP had 

86% fewer syringes in places like 

parks and sidewalks.

CS300156-D March 22, 2019
What can a Syringe Services Program (SSP) do?

SSPs adapt to local needs by providing comprehensive support services, such as ways 

to get treatment, medicines to prevent overdoses, and tools to prevent HIV and viral 

hepatitis. Many support services may be operated in partnership with federal

government funding.

Vaccines for diseases like Hepatitis A and B

Testing for diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C

Counseling on treatment and prevention of HIV and 

Hepatitis B and C, such as antiretroviral therapy and 

pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) 

Referral to substance use treatment, medical care, 

mental health services, and other support services

Access to and safe 

disposal of sterile syringes 

and injection equipment

More than 30 years’ worth of research demonstrates that SSPs protect

the public’s health. They save lives, help those experiencing a substance

use disorder get the support needed to regain a healthy life, and reduce

the impact of drug use on the community.

Visit www.cdc.gov/PWID to learn more.
No. 10-6354.

#### Larry Jones, Petitioner v. Matthew C. Kramer, Warden.

562 U.S. 1054, 131 S. Ct. 600,

178 L. Ed. 2d 453,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8820.

November 15, 2010.

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

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 635.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              INFOCURE CORPORATION
                LENGTH-OF-SERVICE NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN


         Pursuant to the power reserved in Section 16 of the InfoCure
Corporation Length-of-Service Stock Option Plan and in connection with the
approval granted by the shareholders of InfoCure Corporation, Section 3, Shares
Subject to Options, is hereby amended to delete "One hundred fifty thousand
(150,000)" from the first sentence thereof and to insert in its place "Five
hundred thousand (500,000)."


         This Amendment to the InfoCure Corporation Length-of-Service Stock
Option Plan shall be effective as of the date that the shareholders of InfoCure
Corporation adopted the Amendment to the Plan.


                                       INFOCURE CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ James K. Price
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          James K. Price
                                          Executive Vice President and Secretary


                                       Date: March 30, 2000
Exhibit 31.3 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John Moerman, Vice President & Controller of SunCom Wireless, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SunCom Wireless, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with Section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293] for the registrant and have:

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [omitted in accordance with Section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293]; 

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005
No. 10-110.

#### James Ben Brownfield, Petitioner v. Alabama.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 505,

178 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8517.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 44 So. 3d 43.
No. 10-6665.

#### Charles K. Chavez, Petitioner v. Howard Skolnik, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 577,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8730.

178 L. Ed. 2d 421,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 667.
No. 10-5303.

#### Jeffrey Dumas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 273,

178 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7035.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 646.
[562 U.S. 40]

#### COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Petitioner v OMEGA, S. A.

562 U.S. 40, 131 S. Ct. 565,

178 L. Ed. 2d 470,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9597

[No. 08-1423]

Argued November 8, 2010.

Decided December 13, 2010.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ARGUING CASE

Roy T. Englert, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner.

Aaron M. Panner argued the cause for respondent.

Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.

PER CURIAM.

[562 U.S. 41]

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
No. 10-6619.

#### Ndukwe Ukaegbu Kalu, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 610,

178 L. Ed. 2d 444,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8858.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40925

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIAN HUMBERTO SANCHEZ-POMPA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-46-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Julian Humberto Sanchez-Pompa appeals his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Sanchez-Pompa argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in

his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks us
No. 02-40925

-2-

to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to

reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand

his case for resentencing under that provision. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Sanchez-Pompa acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been called

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90

(2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 09-9106.

#### Scott Farthing, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 948, 131 S. Ct. 66,

178 L. Ed. 2d 245,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7725.

October 4, 2010.

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

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