alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020054EN.01006001.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/60

---

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-854/19)

(2020/C 54/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan, and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONTANA – European Union trade mark No 10 708 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2393/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the European Union trademark No. 10 708 881 invalid for the contested goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the European Union trademark No. 10 708 881 invalid for the contested goods and services;

| — | order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00871

- CV

Alonzo Foster BALL , Jr., Appellant

v.

LaVaughn LEWIS, Appellee

From the 22 4th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 05112 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant Alonzo Foster Ball Jr., acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal

. He complains
that the trial court improperly denied his wife’s motion to dismiss a family violence protective
order. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 85.001 (West 2014). After he filed his notice of appeal, he also filed an affidavit of indigence.

On January 22, 2014, we abated this cause and remanded it to the trial court to determine whether Appellant is indigent and hi s appeal is frivolous. In response, the trial court held a hearing on February 24, 2014, and vacated its earlier protective order. Thus, in this case, there
does not appear t o be a final, appealable order.

Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final, appealable orders. See Lehmann v.

Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting that g enerally “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”).

W e ORDER A ppellant Alonzo Foster Ball Jr. to show cause in writing within TEN
DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195. If A ppellant do es not timely show cause why this court has j urisdiction over t h is appeal

, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195

. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pendi ng further order of this court.__________ _______________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of March, 2014

.

__________ _________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
John SAUER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 14.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3ASR filed on March 5, 2009 (File No. 333-157707), on Form F-3 filed on May 11, 2001 (File No. 333-60712), on Form F-3 filed on January 31, 2002 (File No. 333-81862), on Form F-4 filed on December 23, 2010 (File No. 333-171381), on Form S-8 filed on October 1, 2004 (File No. 333-119475), on Form S-8 filed on September 5, 2006 (File No. 333-137112), on Form S-8 filed on October 29, 2009 (File No. 333-162727) and on Form S-8 filed on January 18, 2011 (File No. 333-171739).of Novartis AG of our reportdated January 24, 2012 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.  PricewaterhouseCoopers AG   /s/Peter M. Kartscher

/s/Michael P. NelliganPeter   M. Kartscher

Michael P. NelliganAudit   expert

Global   Relationship PartnerAuditor   in charge   Basel, January 24, 2012   With offices in Aarau, Basel, Berne, Chur, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Lucerne, Neuchâtel, Sitten, St. Gallen, Thun, Winterthur, Zug and Zurich, PricewaterhouseCoopers AG is a provider of auditing services and tax, legal and business consultancy services. PricewaterhouseCoopers AG is a member of a global network of companies that are legally independent of one another; the network is represented in some 150 countries throughout the world.
# C_2022244EN.01000901.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia — Italy) — U.I. Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia

(Case C-714/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 201 - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Import VAT - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 77(3) - Joint and several liability of the indirect customs representative and the importing company - Customs duties)

(2022/C 244/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: U.I. Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 77(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, according to only that provision, an indirect customs representative is liable solely for the customs duties payable in respect of goods which he or she has declared for customs purposes, but not also for the import value added tax in respect of the same goods; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 77(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, according to only that provision, an indirect customs representative is liable solely for the customs duties payable in respect of goods which he or she has declared for customs purposes, but not also for the import value added tax in respect of the same goods;

| 2. | Article 201 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an indirect customs representative cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the importer for the payment of import value added tax where there are no national provisions explicitly and unequivocally designating or acknowledging that indirect customs representative as being liable for that tax. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 201 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an indirect customs representative cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the importer for the payment of import value added tax where there are no national provisions explicitly and unequivocally designating or acknowledging that indirect customs representative as being liable for that tax.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 24/12/2020.

---
# Journal officiel C 214A/4 ju

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 214A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 60e année4 juillet 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 214A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

60e année4 juillet 2017

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2017/C 214 A/01 | Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AST/138/16 — Techniciens audiovisuels et de conférence (AST 3) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2017/C 214 A/01

Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AST/138/16 — Techniciens audiovisuels et de conférence (AST 3)

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 4.7.2017 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 214/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2017

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 214/1

---

LISTE DE RÉSERVE (1)

Concours général EPSO/AST/138/16

Techniciens audiovisuels et de conférence (AST 3)

(2017/C 214 A/01)

| AVANZINI | Stephane |
| --- | --- |
| BALČIŪNAS | Aleksandras |
| CANDRIES | Steven |
| DE KERF | Jef |
| DROULEZ | Arnaud |
| DUCHATEAU | Cédric |
| FLORIDO SANTANA | Carlos Octavio |
| HANNES | Dave |
| KAMBOU | Wilfried |
| KARDAKARIS | Thomas |
| KNEZENAS | Vaidotas |
| LACHICA MUÑOZ | Carlos |
| MARTIN CARRION | Juan |
| MICHEL | Laurent |
| NOVELLO | Denis |
| NTIMOS | Konstantinos |
| ORIAM | Yasmine |
| PAPADOULAS | Konstantinos |
| REINA RUIZ | Jorge |
| RIFON | Joël |
| ROUSSEAU | Lionel |
| THEOCHARIS | Konstantinos |
| VAN DE VOORDE | Christophe |
| WITTMER | Rémy |

AVANZINI

Stephane

BALČIŪNAS

Aleksandras

CANDRIES

Steven

DE KERF

Jef

DROULEZ

Arnaud

DUCHATEAU

Cédric

FLORIDO SANTANA

Carlos Octavio

HANNES

Dave

KAMBOU

Wilfried

KARDAKARIS

Thomas

KNEZENAS

Vaidotas

LACHICA MUÑOZ

Carlos

MARTIN CARRION

Juan

MICHEL

Laurent

NOVELLO

Denis

NTIMOS

Konstantinos

ORIAM

Yasmine

PAPADOULAS

Konstantinos

REINA RUIZ

Jorge

RIFON

Joël

ROUSSEAU

Lionel

THEOCHARIS

Konstantinos

VAN DE VOORDE

Christophe

WITTMER

Rémy

La validité de ces listes expirera le 30 juin 2020.

---

(1)  À la demande expresse d’un lauréat, son nom n’est pas publié.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ADRIAN WALDO-RAMIREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50180

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04488-GT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Adrian Waldo-Ramirez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

FILED

DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50180

Waldo-Ramirez first contends that the district court erred in calculating the

applicable Guidelines range in that it improperly denied a downward departure for

cultural assimilation. This argument fails because “it is the pre-departure

Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.” 

United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis

added). In any event, in light of Waldo-Ramirez’s criminal history, the court did

not err in denying the departure. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8.

Waldo-Ramirez next contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable in view of his cultural assimilation. In light of the totality of the

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Waldo-Ramirez’s

within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 770

(9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOBY M. SEMICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16090 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Toby M. Semick appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16090 

In his opening brief, Semick fails to address how the district court erred by 

dismissing his action for failing to prosecute following the district court’s order to 

file an amended complaint. As a result, Semick has waived his challenge to the 

district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed 

waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not 

manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).

Semick’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021182EN.01002001.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ordine Nazionale dei Biologi, MX, NY, OZ v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-96/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Article 168 TFEU - Directive 2002/98/EC - Standards of quality and safety of human blood and of blood components - Objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human health - Article 4(2) and Article 9(2) - Blood establishments - Responsible person - Minimum conditions of qualification - Option for a Member State to provide for a more stringent regime - Discretion afforded to the Member States)

(2021/C 182/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordine Nazionale dei Biologi, MX, NY, OZ

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

intervening parties: Sds Snabi, Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(a) of Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that only individuals holding a degree in medicine and in surgery may be designated as the responsible person of a blood establishment, provided that that legislation complies with EU law in all aspects.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Avaya Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garry K. McGuire,Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Corporate Development of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ GARRY  K. MCGUIRE                                                       |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Garry K. McGuire                                                            |
| *Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice  President, Corporate Development* |
| August 9, 2006                                                         |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31000]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 27, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1117 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-896, K2025-897.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31000 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of AlphaRx, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Michael Lee, as chief executive officer
of AlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of his knowledge:

1.

This 10-KSB report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

2.

The information contained in this 10-KSB
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of AlphaRx, Inc.

/s/ Michael Lee 
Michael Lee 
President and Chief Executive Officer 
December 19, 2007

45

---
NUMBER 13-22-00228-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

BRANDON PORTILLO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion. Upon review of the reporter’s 

record, portions of the record are lost, missing, or destroyed. Upon review, state’s exhibit 

3 in volume 13 is listed as a CD consisting of medical records and is password protected. 

Furthermore, the exhibit page indicates the item is “unable to view when copied.” Due to 
2

this status, we construe this portion of the record as lost, missing, or destroyed.

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b), (c). Accordingly, 

this appeal is abated and the cause remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall cause

a hearing to be held to determine if the reporter’s record, specifically state’s exhibit 3 in 

volume 13, or any other part thereof, is missing, lost, or destroyed. Furthermore, the court 

is instructed to make findings under TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f), if necessary. Otherwise, the 

court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a 

reporter’s record and shall enter any orders required to avoid further delay and to preserve 

the parties’ rights. The trial court is instructed to take notice of the Uniform Format Manual 

for Texas Reporters’ Records, section 8.3, which specifically states computer files must

not be password-protected. 

The trial court shall cause its findings, together with any orders it may enter, to be 

included in a supplemental clerk’s record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a 

supplemental reporter’s record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental 

clerk’s record and supplemental reporter’s record shall be filed with the Clerk of this 

Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

18th day of August, 2022.