alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022198EN.01003401.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LA v Commission

(Case T-456/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criteria to assess professional experience - Compliance of criteria applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 198/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: LA (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 6 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the request for review of LA’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the request for review of LA’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---
# C_2021009EN.01000501.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-109/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO

(Case C-305/20 P)

(2021/C 9/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl shall bear its own costs.

---
# C_2021382EN.01000601.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-636/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Article 22(6) - Article 29 - Right to be heard - Procedures initiated ex officio - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 382/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Pécs Court, Hungary), made by decision of 30 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-84,060-01

EX P ARTE DONELL MARQUIS F OLEY, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. F 49439-A IN THE 249TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM JOHNSON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 1 8 S
. W
. 2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of delivery of a controlled substance, 4 to 200 grams, as a habi tu al fe l o n , and he was sentenc ed to twenty-five year s’ i mprisonment. He was als o co nvicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, 1 to 4 grams, which counts resulted in suspended sentenc es and community supervision. Applicant alleg es that his guilty pleas we re involuntary

due to the inef

fec tive assistance of his trial counsel and that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal
. T ri al co u n s el has provided a response . Counsel’s response and the habea s rec ord show that the claims perta ining to the conviction2

in count 1 that resulted in a twenty-five year sentenc e lack merit. These cl ai m s ar e d enied. The claims perta ining to the c onvictions in counts 2 and 3 are dismiss ed. Applica nt may not challeng e these counts of conviction in an Article 11.07 habea s application beca use such a challeng e must be raised under Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedur e. Ex parte Hiracheta , 307 S.W 3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Villanueva v. State , 252 S.W .3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Filed: January

13, 2016 Do not publish
# C_2023127EN.01003101.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-607/20) (1)

(Energy - Internal market in electricity - Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation - Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies - Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators - Competence of ACER - Error of law - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 127/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria), and the 7 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: E. Ameye, lawyer, A. Tellidou and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 16 July 2020 confirming ACER Decision No 03/2020 of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation (‘the mFRR platform’) and rejecting their appeals in Case A-002-2020 (consolidated), in so far as that decision concerns them, and the annulment of Article 1 of Decision No 03/2020 and Article 3(3) and (5)(b), Article 4(6), Article 6, Article 11(1)(c) and (2)(c) and Article 12 of the mFRR platform implementation framework, as set out in Annex I to Decision No 03/2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, April L. Marino, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pinecrest Services,
Inc.;

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

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

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer and have:

    (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuers's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

    (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

                                   /s/ April L. Marino
Date: March 24, 2005              ____________________________________
                                  April L. Marino
                                  Principal Executive Officer
Sidney F. DINERSTEIN, a Palm Beach Gardens Registered Voter and Qualified Elector, Appellant, v. Susan BUCHER, in Her Official Capacity as Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, The City of Palm Beach Gardens, and Patricia Snider, in Her Capacity as City Clerk for Palm Beach Gardens, Appellee.

No. 4D18-901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Calvin MAYS v. STATE

CR-16-0779

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017 Reh. denied September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mark GORMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Irina TULIANO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Karen L. REED, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Les DUNBAR, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0416

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00721- CR

Moises G uzm an, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 427 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 12- 3002 25, TH E H ONO RAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted appellant Moises Guzman of two counts of indece ncy with a child by sexual contac t, see Tex. Penal Code § 22.11(a) (1), and the trial court assessed his punishment at confine ment for ten y ear s in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice on ea ch count and order ed the sentenc es to be ser

ved conc urre ntly , see id. § 12.33. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

o rnia by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2 0 09); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988).Appellant’s counsel provided appellant a copy of the brief and advised appellant of

his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. No pro se brief or other wr itten response ha s been f iled. We have conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the rec ord prese nts no arg uably meritorious g rounds for revie w and the appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The trial court’s judgments of conviction ar e af firmed.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Goodwin, and F ield Affir med Filed: Jul y

22, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
**CONSENT OF MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD.**
We consent to the incorporation by reference of references to our firm and of information derivedfrom our report entitled “Evaluation of Oil and Gas Reserves”, evaluating Enterra Energy Trust’sreserves as of December 31, 2004 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enterra EnergyTrust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-120996) and the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-113609 and 333-115104 and333-115318).
(signed) “MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD.”
July 14, 2005
Jordan T. GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1675.

#### Wallace *v.*Southern Railway Company.

Action for damages, from city court of Atlanta — Judge Calhoun, December 4, 1908.

Argued April 1, —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*Burton Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Ileyman, McDaniel, Alston & Black,*for defendant.

Hill, C. J.

Where a widow sues a railroad company to recover damages for the homicide of her husband, an employee of the company, who was killed in connection with his employment, she must show either that the deceased was free from fault contributing to his death, or that he was killed by the negligence of the company as alleged in the declaration. The evidence in this case shows the killing by the company, but it wholly fails to show that the proximate cause of the homicide was the alleged negligence of the defendant, or that the deceased employee was blameless in connection with his death. A nonsuit was therefore properly awarded, as the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. Hopkins’ Law of Personal Injuries, §§240, 241, and 374, and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2020348EN.01002704.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/27

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2020 — IV v Commission

(Case T-145/20) (1)

(2020/C 348/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
Ralph Harold PENROD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3176

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021062EN.01003401.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/34

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM)

(Case T-289/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FACEGYM - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 62/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Facegym Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2020 (Case R 70/2020-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign FACEGYM as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Facegym Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Facegym Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2020297EN.01002902.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

(Case C-254/20)

(2020/C 297/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: PI Pharma NV

Respondents: Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?

---
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 775

- CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 3, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 21, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The

court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009

- CR

- 6566 , styled State of Te xas v. Jason Miears , pending in

the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding. However, relator lists

as the respondent the Honorable Sid L. Harle, presiding judge of the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 6, 2016

a0829 

# Order

Clerk September 6, 2016

152429

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152429

COA: 328594

Wayne CC: 09

- 007942

- FC

WILLIAM MARSHALL MOSLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2015

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).