alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD PARKS.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 907)

(410 SE2d 34)

Decided September 17, 1991.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paul B. Cohen, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This matter has come before this Court pursuant to Rule 4-208.3 (a) of the Rules and Regulations for the Organization and Government of the State Bar of Georgia.

The Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board, after conducting an investigation into the complaint filed against Bernard Parks by Sidney D. Douglas, Jr. found that Bernard Parks violated Standards 4, 21, 22, 23, 44, 45 and 68 of Bar Rule 4-102. As a result, the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board directed the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia to file a notice of discipline recommending the disbarment of Bernard Parks.

The Office of the General Counsel filed the notice of discipline and service was perfected on Bernard Parks on July 26, 1991 by Certified Mail #P855 957 437, Restricted Delivery. See Proof of Service of the notice of Discipline filed by the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia on August 2, 1991. Bernard Parks failed to Respond to the notice of discipline within twenty (20) days.

It is hereby ordered that Bernard Parks is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia.

*All the Justices concur.*
# C_2013156EN.01005201.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/52

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-203/13 P)

2013/C 156/95

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety, without any exception, the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety, without any exception, the order under appeal;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission rejecting as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to withhold certain amounts from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of October, November and December 2011 and for reimbursement of the sums withheld.

Marcuccio

Commission

In the order under appeal, the Tribunal stated that the firm of the appellant’s representative which appears at the end of the document sent by fax on 5 September 2012 was not the same as the firm which appears on the application received by post on 13 September 2012.

In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges absolute failure to state reasons, by reason inter alia of failure to make preliminary inquiries, self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and an error of law, by reason inter alia of manifest failure properly to appraise the facts.

---
Exhibit 23.1
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 33-44551, 33-56289, 33-64317, 333-46615, 333-59790, 333-65822, 333-75539, 333-75541,333-75543, 333-91613) of R.H. Donnelley Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating tothe consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingwhich appear in this Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-44551, 33-56289, 33-64317, 333-46615, 333-59790,333-65822, 333-75539, 333-75541, 333-75543, 333-91613) of R.H. Donnelley Corporation of our reportsdated March 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements of R.H. Donnelley Publishing &Advertising, Inc., R.H. Donnelley APIL, Inc., and DonTech II Partnership, and our reports datedMarch 16, 2005, except for Note 2 as to which the date is May 6, 2005, relating to the financialstatements of R.H. Donnelley Publishing & Advertising of Illinois Holdings, LLC and R.H. DonnelleyPublishing & Advertising of Illinois Partnership which appear in this Form 10-K/A.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina
*The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3680

___________

Thomas Mark Zinna, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Dave Dormire, Superintendent, *

Jefferson City Correctional Center, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 10, 2001

Filed: April 18, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Mark Zinna was convicted of second-degree burglary, stealing firearms,

and second-degree property damage in Missouri state court. He was sentenced as a

persistent offender to imprisonment for forty years and six months. After exhausting
**The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

his state court remedies, Zinna filed a federal habeas petition. The district court**

denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability on one claim: whether trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to call coperpetrator Billy Long as a witness. During

a state postconviction hearing, Long testified he would have told the jury Zinna was not

involved in the robbery because he was sleeping at a motel at the time. At the same

hearing, Zinna's trial attorney testified that several days before trial, Long told him, "I

am going to hurt you. I am not going to help you." The state postconviction court

found the attorney discussed the possibility of Long testifying with Zinna and he chose

not to call Long as a witness as a matter of trial strategy. The court also heard Long's

testimony and found he lacked credibility. 

On appeal, Zinna concedes the record supports the attorney's testimony at the

postconviction proceeding, but argues Long's testimony there rendered counsel's

decision not to call Long at trial unreasonable. We conclude the state courts did not

unreasonably apply federal law in denying Zinna postconviction relief because the

performance of Zinna's attorney was not deficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 2554(d)(1);

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-90 (1984). Besides, Zinna cannot

establish the allegedly deficient performance prejudiced him, given the overwhelming

evidence of his guilt. See id. at 694-95. We thus affirm the district court's denial of

Zinna's habeas petition.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2017144EN.01006003.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

(Case T-225/13) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/83)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

1

---
You are being redirected to 

**Updated recommended treatment regimens for gonococcal infections and associated conditions - United States, April 2007**

You will automatically be transferred tohttp://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/updated-regimens.htm
No. 10-7520.

#### Abraham Lockett, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 845,

178 L. Ed. 2d 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9729.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 837.
No. 10-6270.

#### James Turner, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 987, 131 S. Ct. 426,

178 L. Ed. 2d 332,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8242.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 37 So. 3d 212.
No. 10-5915.

#### In re Jack Lucious, Jr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1104, 131 S. Ct. 816,

178 L. Ed. 2d 549,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9522.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 359, 178 L. Ed. 2d 257, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7694.
#### Timms v. CSX Transp., Inc.

05/18/2016

708 EAL (2015)

Denied

No. 141 EDM 2015
# C_2013171EN.01003102.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp/OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)

(Case T-196/13)

2013/C 171/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero (Maarssen, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2013 in case R 300/2012-1, relating to cancellation proceedings No. 000005025 C (Community trademark No. 005205125) between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero h.o.d.n. La Nana; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2013 in case R 300/2012-1, relating to cancellation proceedings No. 000005025 C (Community trademark No. 005205125) between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero h.o.d.n. La Nana;

| — | Order the Defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘la nana’ for goods of classes 16, 20 and 24 — Community trade mark registration No 5 205 125

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety based on Article 57(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), Article 57(2) and (3) and Article 78 (1)(f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014388EN.01001401.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Herdade de S. Tiago II v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)

(Case T-90/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark V - Earlier Community, national and Benelux figurative marks representing a polo player - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 388/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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 party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: R. Black and S. Davies, Solicitors)

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 28 November 2012 (Case R 2240/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP and Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6737.

#### Michael Lynn Jones, Petitioner v. Blaine Lafler, Warden.

562 U.S. 1034, 131 S. Ct. 578,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8726.

178 L. Ed. 2d 422,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6452.

#### Bradford Metcalf, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 432,

178 L. Ed. 2d 336,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8229,

October 18, 2010.

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 31, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132014 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, VONZELLA YOUNG, Personal Justices 

Representative of the Estate of MILDRED

P. SILA, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132014 

 COA: 259644 

Osceola CC: 02-009613-NH 

SPECTRUM HEALTH-REED CITY 

CAMPUS,
 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 18, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0124 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 31, 2007 

Clerk
**Exhibit 10-1.1**

 

**EXCERPT FROM THE**

**MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE**

**BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION**

**HELD ON JUNE 18, 1997**

 

A special meeting of the Board of Directors of Duke Energy Corporation washeld at 11:01 a.m. in the Board Room, Power Building, Charlotte, North Carolina, on Wednesday, June 18, 1997. 

 

The following members were present: 

 

G. Alex Bernhardt, Sr. 

Robert J. Brown

W. A. Coley 

George DeanJohnson, Jr. 

W. W. Johnson 

A.Max Lennon 

James G. Martin 

Buck Mickel 

Richard B. Priory 

Russell M. Robinson, II 

 

being all the members. Also present wereDirectors Emeriti, Thomas H. Davis and John L. Fraley. 

 

Mr.Richard B. Priory, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, presided over the meeting, and Mr. W. Edward Poe, Jr., the Secretary, acted as such. 

 

* * * * * * * 

 

In addition, Mr. Johnson recommended approval of adjustments to the Board of Directors’ Compensation and Benefits Program. These changes included[intentionally omitted] an increase in the Directors’ Charitable Giving Program. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the following revised Board of Directors’ Compensation and Benefits Program was approved and adopted: 

 

**Duke Energy Corporation’s Directors’ Compensation & Benefits Program**

 

[intentionally omitted] 

 

8. Charitable Giving Program 

 

 

[intentionally omitted]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1070 

CAF 10-01876 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF CHELSEY B. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

MICHAEL W., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

JENNIFER M. LORENZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LANCASTER, FOR CHELSEY B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia

A. Maxwell, J.), entered October 7, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, determined the

subject child to be severely abused. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of factfinding determining that his older daughter is a severely abused child

and that his younger daughter is derivatively abused. We note at the

outset that Family Court subsequently issued separate orders of “factfinding and disposition” with respect to each child, and we therefore

exercise our discretion to deem the father to have taken appeals from

those orders (see generally Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Ariel

C.W.-H., ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 10, 2011]). 

We reject the father’s contention in appeal No. 1 that the

finding that his older daughter is a severely abused child is not

supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Perry T.K.,

16 AD3d 687; see also Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [ii]). It is axiomatic

that the “determination of Family Court is entitled to great weight

and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record”

(Matter of Shardanae T.-L., 78 AD3d 1631 [internal quotation marks

omitted]), and that is not the case here. Petitioner proved by clear

and convincing evidence that the father committed felony sex offenses

against his older daughter in violation of Penal Law § 130.35 (4) and

§ 130.50 (4) (see Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [a] [ii]). The

older daughter’s out-of-court statements to a school counselor and a

nurse practitioner were sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence
-2- 1070 

CAF 10-01876 

of sexual intercourse and the testimony of petitioner’s validation

expert (see Matter of Breanna R., 61 AD3d 1338, 1340). Furthermore,

the court was entitled to draw the strongest possible inferences

against the father “ ‘as may be supported by other evidence in the

record’ ” based upon his failure to testify (Matter of Jeffrey D., 233

AD2d 668, 670; see generally Matter of Anita J.F., 267 AD2d 1044, lv

denied 94 NY2d 762). We further conclude that the court’s finding of

derivative abuse in appeal No. 2 with respect to the father’s younger

daughter was proper (see generally Breanna R., 61 AD3d at 1340; Matter

of Derrick C., 52 AD3d 1325, 1326, lv denied 11 NY3d 705).

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00699

- CR

Jerimiah BAREFIELD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6188A

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED November 25, 2015.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
# C_2013260EN.01002201.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2013 — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH

(Case C-319/13)

2013/C 260/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Udo Rätzke

Appellant:

Respondant: S+K Handels GmbH

Respondant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 (1) of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions to be interpreted as meaning that dealers are subject to an obligation to label televisions (from 30 November 2011) only if those televisions were supplied by the supplier together with the relevant label (from 30 November 2011) in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, or does the labelling obligation also apply to dealers (from 30 November 2011) in respect of televisions supplied by suppliers before 30 November 2011 without the relevant labels, so that dealers are obliged to request suppliers (in good time, subsequently) to provide labels for those televisions?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 314, p. 64.

1

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2*

Page 91


                           Section 1350 Certification

        I, Steven G. Larson, the chief financial officer of Drexler Technology
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge:

        (i)     the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

        (ii)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:   June 15, 2004


/s/ Steven G. Larson
--------------------
Steven G. Larson

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

*The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.