alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JOHN GABOR; KAY GABOR,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, in their official

capacity; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-16239

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-04266-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

John Gabor and Kay Gabor appeal pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing their complaint brought under various federal and state laws, alleging

FILED

JAN 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
/Research 2 08-16239

that an official of the City of Campbell came to their house to look for potential

zoning violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1065 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), and

we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the Gabors did not

allege facts in the complaint that, taken as true and construed in a light most

favorable to them, show any entitlement to relief. See id. at 1066 (“To state a

section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which show a deprivation of a

right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law . . . .”);

Johnson v. State of California, 207 F.3d 650, 656 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(stating that a conspiracy claim based only on vague and conclusory allegations is

properly dismissed).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enter default

against the defendants. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.

1980) (per curiam) (“Given the lack of merit in appellant’s substantive claims, we

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declining to enter a default

judgment in favor of appellant.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the recusal motion

because no “reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that
/Research 3 08-16239

the [district] judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States

v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the action, the appeal

from the orders denying preliminary injunctive relief is moot. See Mt. Graham

Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Gabors’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist.

Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussing five guidelines to

determine whether the “extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).

AFFIRMED.
# 6.1

Page 6 - &P
Jimmy Dale ANTLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3860

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No., 333-67086, 333-101321, 333-99237, 333-138719, 333-153712 and 333-168743) pertaining to the Key Employee Share Incentive Plan (1996), United States Share Incentive Plan (2000) and Employee Share Purchase Plan of RadView Software Ltd. of our report dated June 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of RadView Software Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.




June 30, 2011
/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererTel Aviv, Israel
Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Order entered June 28, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00757-CR

MIGUEL GUERRERO REYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-53482-V

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the March 23, 2018 motion of 

Tara Cunningham for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk 

of the Court to remove Tara Cunningham as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the 

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Miguel Guerrero 

Reyes, TDCJ No. 02145501, Middleton Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas, 79601.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
This project was conducted by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (www.lrc.rpi.edu) under FAA contract FAA/05‐C‐AT‐

RPI.  This summary was prepared by the Lighting Research Center on behalf of the FAA.

Further details: Don Gallagher, donald.gallagher@faa.gov;  http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/aviation.asp.

Federal Aviation Administration 

Research Highlights 

Study Goals

Researchers from the Lighting

Research Center (LRC) at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

investigated the benefits of the

LED‐based elevated runway guard light (ERGL)

compared to the incandescent‐based ERGL.

Research Activities

A laboratory study first conducted in 2008 by LRC

researchers showed that the minimum luminous

intensity requirements for incandescent‐based ERGLs

were adequate, but the intensity of LED‐based ERGLs

with the right combination of flash rate, duty cycle, and

waveform shape could be reduced to one‐third of the

recommended value for an incandescent system.

Incandescent lamps have reduced effective intensity due

to the slow rise time in light output caused by the larger

thermal mass of the filament, whereas the light output of

LEDs has a faster rise time and thus higher effective

intensity and increased conspicuity. This is the reason

why LED‐based ERGL intensity can be reduced without

reducing visibility.

A follow‐on study conducted by LRC scientists in 2010

at Schenectady County Airport in Glenville, N.Y.,

validated the laboratory findings. The field study results

illustrated in the graph show that the LED‐based ERGL

at an intensity value less than 30% of the incandescent

base case and modulated at 90 flashes per minute (FPM)

and 70% duty cycle (DC) showed the highest

noticeability to the observing pilots with minimum

distraction.

In 2011, LRC researchers supported the FAA and

researchers at Embry‐Riddle Aeronautical University to

conduct a larger scale field study at Daytona Beach

International Airport in Florida to validate the LRC’s

study findings. The 86 pilots who participated in the

study perceived the lower intensity LED prototype

fixtures to be brighter, more noticeable, and more

preferred than the incandescent based ERGLs.

For More Information

Radetsky, L.C., et al. 2014. Proc. of 2014 FAA Worldwide Airport

Technology Transfer Conference, Galloway, N.J., August 4‐8, 2014;

<www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/FlexNews/DownloadHandler.a

shx?id=7d2febec‐ad2b‐40eb‐8fd7‐9813e3bfc083&f=S10109‐Radetsky.pdf >.

LED Elevated 

Runway Guard Lights

Field study results

A properly designed LED‐based ERGL with much

lower intensity is more effective than an

incandescent‐based ERGL in alerting pilots.

Furthermore, LED‐based systems have the

potential to be less expensive to use and maintain.

Pilot perception of the prototype LED‐based ERGL (left

and right) at Daytona Beach International Airport.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  MicroSignal  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

2. the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Dated:  November 18, 2003

/s/ Wayne Norris
------------------------------------
Name: Wayne Norris
Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  November 18, 2003

/s/ Wayne Norris
------------------------------------
Name: Wayne Norris
Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021452EN.01002602.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-101/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
Exhibit 23.01  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement Nos.333-134263, 333-121078,
333-119027, 333-123854 and 333-121168 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-109531, 333-134178 and 333-144855 on Form S-8
of our reports dated March 17, 2008, relating to the financial statements
of Acusphere, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding Acusphere, Inc. and
subsidiaries ability to continue as a going concern and relating to the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.123R, Share-Based Payment), and the effectiveness of Acusphere, Inc.
and subsidiaries internal control over financial reporting appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acusphere, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 2007.   /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP  Boston, Massachusetts
March 17, 2008
STATE of Louisiana v. Gary M. FRANCOIS

NO. 2018-KO-0530

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
Doctor R. CRANTS, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. LCS CORRECTIONS SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4859

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Carlton Wayne HOLMAN v. STATE

CR-16-0656

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2022171EN.01000801.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-275/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2020/470 - Extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part - Procedural legal basis - Article 218(7) TFEU - Applicable procedure and voting rule)

(2022/C 171/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.F. Brakeland, M. Afonso and D. Schaffrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: J.-L. Carré, T. Stehelin, E. de Moustier and A. Daniel, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decision 2020/470 be maintained in force until the grounds for annulment established have been remedied; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2020/470 be maintained in force until the grounds for annulment established have been remedied;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
SIDE
LETTER


 


	INTEGUMEN
                                         LIMITED

        Sand
        Hutton Applied Innovation Campus

        Sand
        Hutton

        York

        North
        Yorkshire

        YO41
        1LZ

        England

         

	ENHANCE
                                         SKIN PRODUCTS INC.

        50
        West Liberty Street

        Suite
        880

        Reno

        NV
        89501

        United
        States of America

         



8
September 2016


 


Re
 Enhance Skin Products Inc. (the “Company”)


 


Dear
Sirs


 


We
refer to the option agreement, dated 7 July 2016, between (1) Integumen Limited, formally known as BioSurface Limited (“Integumen”)
and (2) the Company (the “Option Agreement”). This letter constitutes a side letter to the Option Agreement.


 


Save
as otherwise provided for in this letter, defined terms used in this letter shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the
Option Agreement.


 


We
the undersigned being all of the parties to the Option Agreement hereby agree and confirm that, in consideration for the participation
by each party hereto in the good faith negotiations in relation to the entry into an asset purchase agreement in relation to certain
assets owned by the Company, the Option Agreement shall be amended, in accordance with Clause 10.3 of the Option Agreement, by
the deletion of the current Clause 3.2 of the Option Agreement and its replacement with the following new Clause 3.2:


 


 “3.2 The
Option shall lapse on 15 September 2016.”


 


This
letter may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which when executed and delivered shall be an original, but all the
counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


This
letter shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales and the parties hereby irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the
courts of England and Wales in relation to any dispute arising from, or in connection with, this letter.


 


Yours
faithfully


 


	 	 	 
	Duly
    authorised, for and on behalf of INTEGUMEN LIMITED	 	Duly
    authorised, for and on behalf of ENHANCE SKIN PRODUCTS
    INC.
Leslie G. LOWE v. STATE

CR-16-0777

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

I, Ray Brunner, certify that: 

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, 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 included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

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 most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 9, 2007
# C_2022119EN.01004302.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/43

---

Order of the General Court of 22 December 2021 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission

(Case T-604/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China - Act making imports subject to registration - Provisional anti-dumping duty - Suspension of the registration obligation - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 119/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China) and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Maresca, A. Cerruti, A. Malinconico, G. La Malfa Ribolla, D. Guardamagna and M. Guardamagna, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, P. Němečková and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 275, p. 16).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Guangdong Haomei New Materials, Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology, the Commission and Airoldi Metalli SpA shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Guangdong Haomei New Materials, Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology, the Commission and Airoldi Metalli SpA shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
# C_2020287EN.01002703.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/27

---

Appeal brought on 28 April 2020 by Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2020 in Case T-159/19, Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’

(Case C-183/20 P)

(2020/C 287/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (represented by: H. Basiński, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k

By order of 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs.

---
QUIROZ CARPENTRY CORP. and Norguard Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Yoni LOPEZ PORTILLO, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.