alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014039EN.01002401.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/24

---

Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

(Case T-636/13)

2014/C 39/42

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, 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: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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:

| — | Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.

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 word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257

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

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7186** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES E. DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00445

- REP

- 1; 3:08

- cv - 00287

- REP )

Submitted : February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dis missed by un published per curiam opinion
. James E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (200 0);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with ora l argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40255

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCUS RAY BOYKIN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-148-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Ray Boykin has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Boykin has filed a response. Our independent review of the

record, counsel’s brief, and Boykin’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The Government’s motion to dismiss is

DENIED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Infrared Spectrum of PMN Substance 3
No. 10-7732.

#### In re Allen Vaughn, Jr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 962,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 89.

178 L. Ed. 2d 807,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128029 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. LYNAE J. KUPER, Pers onal Representative of Stephen J. Markman, The Estate of Mark Kuper, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128029 COA: 250952 Kent CC: 01-006518-NH METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL, PAUL R. DWYER, M.D., and LEON ARD A. LEWIS, JR., D.O., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , K ELLY
, and M ARKMAN , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

t1026 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 2, 2005

Clerk
No. 10-7390.

#### Bernard Cherry, Petitioner v. City of New York, New York, et al.

562 U.S. 1152, 131 S. Ct. 940,

178 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 232,

January 10, 2011.

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

*780Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 57.
No. 10-320.

#### Anwar Haque, Petitioner v. New York.

562 U.S. 1135, 131 S. Ct. 903,

178 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 282.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 70 App. Div. 3d 967, 897 N.Y.S.2d 130.
No. 10-7225.

#### Tyrone Bateman, Petitioner v. Missouri.

562 U.S. 1148, 131 S. Ct. 927,

178 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 215.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 318 S.W.3d 681.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/S/ DAVID C. KAHN
-----------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AUGUST 2, 2006
# C_2014315EN.01005802.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/58

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission

(Case T-244/13) (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 315/98

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (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. | Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6920.

#### Phillip L. Harmon, Petitioner v. Tim Anderson, Sheriff, Santa Barbara County, California, et al.

562 U.S. 1124,131 S. Ct. 828,

178 L. Ed. 2d 579,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9752.

December 13, 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, 384 Fed. Appx. 673.
# C_2013336EN.01003201.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/32

---

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-92/13)

2013/C 336/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate the bonus on pension rights acquired before the entry into the service on the basis of the new GIP concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, accordingly, inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, accordingly, inapplicable;

| — | Annul the decision of 15 February 2013 to add a bonus to the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into the service, on the transfer thereof to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions (‘EUIPS’), by application of the General Implementing Provisions (‘GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 15 February 2013 to add a bonus to the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into the service, on the transfer thereof to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions (‘EUIPS’), by application of the General Implementing Provisions (‘GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 10-6751.

#### Chris J. Jacobs, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

562 U.S. 1089, 131 S. Ct. 796,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9542.

178 L. Ed. 2d 528,

December 6, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
#### In the Matter of James Pettus, Petitioner, v James W. Hubert, Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 544]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or *553disbursements.

Concur—Richter, J.R, Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for JPMMT 2006-S4, Respondent, v Daniel Adler, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[49 NYS3d 148]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Daniel Adler appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 30, 2015, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to renew its motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the party opposing the motion (see *Tewari v Tsoutsouras,*75 NY2d 1, 11-12 [1989]; *Siracusa v Fitterman,*110 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2013]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, in effect, granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to renew its motion for summary judgment.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER








18 U.S.C.
1350 Certification of Bruce C. Dale


Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer


of


Duckwall-ALCO
Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and
Subsidiaries, a Kansas corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended
February 3, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:





(a)
            the Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and;





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.  and Subsidiaries and will be retained by
Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  April
28, 2008


By: /s/ Donny R. Johnson


Donny
R. Johnson


Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-5729.

#### Carl Allen Nakagawa, Petitioner v. Colorado.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 985,

178 L. Ed. 2d 814,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 425.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 339, 178 L. Ed. 2d 221, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7212.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aslam Forde, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kabba Sow, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 657]—

*443Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered December 18, 2014, convicting defendants, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny, and sentencing defendant Forde, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of IV2 to 3 years, and sentencing defendant Sow to an aggregate term of 90 days, concurrent with 5 years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdicts were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). It was reasonable for the jury to infer defendants’ accessorial liability, based on the totality of their course of conduct in two stores, as established by eyewitness testimony and surveillánce videotapes. The evidence supports inferences that both defendants knew that a third codefendant was making fraudulent purchases by means of a large number of debit cards not in his own name, and that both defendants assisted the third codefendant by gathering merchandise (in a hasty manner not indicative of legitimate shopping) and distracting the cashier while the sale was being consummated *(see e.g. People v Hazel,*26 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 848 [2006]). The fact that defendants were acquitted of some charges does not warrant a different conclusion *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]).

Defendants’ challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are entirely unpreserved because, during the summation, defendants either failed to object or made generalized objections. Although defendants’ postsummation mistrial motions made some specific claims, this did not preserve those issues, which should have been raised during the summation *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; *People v LaValle,*3 NY3d 88, 116 [2004]). We decline to review any of defendants’ summation claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we conclude that the remarks at issue generally constituted fair comment on the evidence, including the drawing of reasonable inferences, and were responsive to the defense summations. To the extent that there were any improprieties, they did not deprive either defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 40430

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Manuel Diaz,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 460

- 1

Before **Haynes, Willett,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  : * Manuel Diaz pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). In his written plea agreement, Diaz reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He asserts that the district court erred in finding that his warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40430 Document: 00515519352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2020No. 19

- 40430

2 When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law

— including its determination that probable cause to arrest existed

— de novo. United States v. Wadley , 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). We may uphold the district court’s ruling on any basis established by the record. United States v. Mata , 517 F.3 d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 2008). Considering the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government

— including the “ordinary citizen[s’] eyewitness” descriptions of the photographs contained in Diaz’s cellular telephone as child pornography involving young girls

— we conclude that the facts known to police at the moment they arrested Diaz sufficed to give rise to a fair probability that he had engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Burbridge , 252 F.3d 775, 777

- 78 (5th Cir. 2001); Wadl ey , 59 F.3d at 512; United States v. Garcia , 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the police had probable cause to arrest Diaz, his subsequent incriminating statements, which he made after he was Mirandized, as well as the photographs and video recor dings recovered from his cellular telephone as a result of those statements, were admissible. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence. See Wadley , 59 F.3d at 512. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-40430 Document: 00515519352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2020